Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HYPERTOUCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNEDY-WESTERN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-05203 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND

COSTS

Defendant has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court determines that the matter

is appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and

accordingly VACATES the April 21, 2006 hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

defendant’s motion. (Docket No. 127).

Defendant seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 7706(g)(4), which provides

that the Court “may, in its discretion, require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of [an action

brought by an internet service provider under the CAN-SPAM Act], and assess reasonable costs,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, against any party.” See 15 U.S.C. § 7706(g)(4). Plaintiff opposes

defendant’s motion on numerous grounds. 

The Court in its discretion declines to award fees and costs. As an initial matter, however, the

Court rejects plaintiff’s contention that defendant is not a prevailing party. By order filed on March

8, 2006, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and held that plaintiff failed to

submit any evidence on an element of plaintiff’s CAN-SPAM Act claims. The Court entered judgment

in favor of defendant. The fact that the Court dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims for lack of

jurisdiction does not detract from defendant’s status as prevailing party on the CAN-SPAM claims. Cf.

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 133 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Bathke v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., 64 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding defendant prevailing party

for purposes of awarding costs where summary judgment entered in favor of defendant on federal claims

and state claim dismissed). 

Nevertheless, the Court agrees with plaintiff that fees are not warranted because this case

involved the interpretation of a new statute, the CAN-SPAM Act, and presented a number of issues of

first impression. Moreover, the Court notes that the question of whether plaintiff is an “internet service

provider” under the CAN-SPAM Act was fairly fought by the parties, and the Court found in favor of

plaintiff on that issue.

The Court is given pause by defendant’s assertion – which plaintiff does not deny – that this

action is one of 30 cases brought by plaintiff under the CAN-SPAM Act. However, in light of the fact

that this case involved an emerging area of law, the Court does not, at this time and under the

circumstances of this case, find that fees and costs are warranted, although such fees and costs might

be warranted in a subsequent case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 133 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 2