Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01664/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01664-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMITH & HAWKEN, LTD., 

a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GARDENDANCE, INC., a North Carolina

Corporation, and MARK DONLEY, an

individual, 

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 04-1664 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 89 & 109]

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for (1) an Award of Prevailing Party

Attorney's Fees Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and (2) an Order of Sanctions Against Defendants and their

Counsel, filed on August 15, 2005 [Docket No. 89]. On October 24, 2005, this Court referred Plaintiff's

Motion to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. The case was referred to Magistrate

Judge Maria-Elena James on October 25, 2005. On December 19, 2005, Magistrate Judge James issued

a report and recommendation [Docket No. 109]. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), "[w]ithin 10 days after being served with a

copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may not

thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge's order to which objection was not timely

made." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The ten-day period for filing objections has elapsed. None of the parties

filed any objections to the report, timely or otherwise. 

Having considered the report, and the recommendations therein, and for good cause appearing,

this Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge James' Report and Recommendation re Plaintiff's Motion

for an Award of Prevailing Party Attorney's Fees and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.

Accordingly, 

Case 4:04-cv-01664-SBA Document 110 Filed 02/09/06 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Magistrate Judge James' Report and Recommendation re

Motion for an Award of Prevailing Party Attorney's Fees and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [Docket

No. 109] is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Prevailing Party

Attorney's Fees is GRANTED. The Court finds that an award of attorney fees in this matter is

appropriate. Plaintiff's success in this case is complete and unquestionable, the claims it brought were

not frivolous, Plaintiff's success furthers the policies of the Copyright Act, and an award of attorney's

fees will not impose too great or inequitable a burden on Defendants. In fact, Defendants did not oppose

or otherwise raise any objection to Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. Consequently, the Court awards

attorney's fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $106,948.89.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff has

not demonstrated that Defendants or their counsel acted with an improper purpose or with bad faith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 2/9/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01664-SBA Document 110 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2