Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02963/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02963-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lori Jo Giddings, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vision House Production, Inc., et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2963-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Related Non-Taxable Expenses pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Doc. # 86). Having reviewed

the motion and memorandum in support, as well as the responses and replies thereto, the

Court issues the following Order.

I. BACKGROUND

This case initially came before this Court on September 27, 2005 when Plaintiff filed

a four-count complaint against Defendants asserting a copyright infringement claim and three

other claims. (Doc. # 1). On August 3, 2007, the other claims were dismissed with prejudice

because they were preempted by the copyright infringement claim. (Doc. # 24). On October

21, 2008, the copyright infringement claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (Doc. # 84). On October 28, 2008, the Defendants filed the present motion for

attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses under 17 U.S.C. § 505. (Doc. # 86).

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 93 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

II. DISCUSSION

Under 17 U.S.C. § 505 the prevailing party in a copyright infringement claim may,

at the discretion of the court, recover a reasonable attorney’s fee and full costs. The

Defendants request an award of $84,812.31. (Doc. # 86). Plaintiff argues that the Defendants

are not entitled to attorneys’ fees because they have achieved a procedural victory rather than

a ruling on the merits. (Doc. # 91).

A. Jurisdiction

Before proceeding to the merits of the Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees, this

Court is required to first address the matter of jurisdiction. Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101,

1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1, 6 n.4 (2005)). Although neither party

raised any jurisdictional issues, this Court must raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte. Grupo

Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (1986); Williams v. United Airlines,

Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007); Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.

2006); Wilson v. Fisch, No. 08-00347(JMS/KSC), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14314, at *7 (D.

Haw. Feb. 24, 2009). This Court must therefore decide whether it has jurisdiction to award

attorneys’ fees.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys’

fees if the underlying claim was itself dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006); Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287,

292–93 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the fee-shifting provision of the substantive statute under

which the suit was brought cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction that is otherwise absent.

Knight v. Knight, 207 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000). See also W.G. ex rel. D.G. v.

Senatore, 18 F.3d 60, 64 (2d. Cir. 1994) (concluding that where there is no subject matter

jurisdiction over the substantive claim an award of attorneys’ fees is barred as a matter of

law). In ruling on an attorneys’ fees claim brought under 17 U.S.C. § 505, the district court

for the Central District of California concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

hear the claim because the original complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. McCormick v. Amir Constr. Inc., CV 05-7456 CAS(PJWx), 2008 U.S. Dist.

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 93 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

LEXIS 84455, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008). Similarly, in this case, because the underlying

copyright infringement claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court

cannot rule on the merits of the attorneys’ fees claim and must dismiss the claim for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Related Non-Taxable Expenses be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-02963-MHM Document 93 Filed 06/12/09 Page 3 of 3