N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KTS KAR

AOKE, INC ., a

C a lifornia c orporation; TIM M Y SUN TON, individually , Plaintiffs-c ounte r-de fe nda nts - Appe lla nts, v. SONY ATV M USIC PUB LISHING, LLC ; SONY/ATV DISC OS M USIC PUB LISHING, LLC ; SONY/ATV LATIN M USIC PUB LISHING, LLC ; SONY/ATV SONGS LLC ; SONY/ATV SOUNDS LLC ; SONY/ATV TUNES LLC , De fe nda

nts-c ounte r-pla intiffs - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55355 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00014-M W FJEM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL E D MAR 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : W . FLETC HER , M UR GUIA, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. KTS Ka ra oke , Inc . (“ KTS” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of its m otion for attorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the C opy right Ac t . R e vie w ing for a buse of disc re tion, C adk in v . Loose , 569 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th C ir. 2009), we a ffirm . KTS wa s not thepre va iling pa rty a s to Sony ’ s c o unte rc la im for c opy right infringe m e nt, the volunta ry dism issa l of whic h

form s the ba sis for KTS’ s re que st for attorne y ’ s fe e s. Se e 17 U.S.C . § 505 (providing tha t “ the c ourt m ay

a lso a ward a re a sona ble attorne y ’ s fe e to the pre va iling pa rty a s pa rt of the c osts” ). Sony a gre e d to volunta

rily dism iss its c ounte rc la im

a ga inst KTS a s pa

rt of a se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt in whic h KTS’ s insure r, Trave le rs, a gre e d to pa y Sony $1.25 million. Sony wa s the pre va i ling pa

rty in the de a l be c a

use it obta ine d “ an e nforc e a ble , judic ia lly sa nc t ione d a

ward of m

uc h of the re lie f [it] sought,” he re , m o ne y dam a ge s. K

lamath Sisk

iy ou W i ldlands C

tr. v . U.S. Bure au of Land Mgmt. , 589 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th C ir. 2009). The fa c t tha

t the distric t c ourt orde re d tha t Sony ’ s Te nne sse e suit be c onsolida te d with theC a lifornia

suit, a nd tha t the c ourt de nie d Sony ’ s m otions for sa nc tions, for a

pre lim i na

ry injunc tion, a

nd to dism

iss KTS’ s c la im s doe s not re nde r KTS the p re va iling pa rty , a s thoseorde rs did not a fford KTS any a c tua l re lie f. Se eid. at 1031 (“ [T] h e c ourt m ust form a lly

indic ate tha

t the pla intiff is 2e ntitle d to som e ac tual re lie f

— le ga l or e quita

ble re l ie f— in orde r to e sta blish a m ate ria l a lte ration.” (e m

pha sis in origina

l)). A favora

ble de t e rm ination on a

le ga l issue is not e nough. C

itize n s for Be tte r Fore

stry v . U.S. De

p’t of Agric . , 567 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th C ir. 2009). M ore ove r, Sony wa s ne ve r forc e d by

the c ourt to re duc e the num

be r of a lle ge d ly

infringing works. S

e eK lamath , 589 F.3d a

t 1031 (“ To re c e ive what

one sought is not e

nough to pre v a il: the c ourt m u st re quire one ’ s oppone nt to giveit.” ). Fina l l y , we re je c t KTS’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t it did not se

ttle with Sony or tha t it wa s not a

pa rty to the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt. B y te nde ring the c ounte rc la im

to Tra ve le rs for it to de fe nd, KTS wa s bound by Trave le rs’ s right to c ontrol thede fe nse . Se eSafe c o Ins. C o. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 84 C a l . R

ptr. 2d 43, 45 (C t. App. 1999) (“Whe n the insure r provide s a de fe nse to its insure d, the insure d ha s no right to inte

rfe re with theinsure r’ s c ontrol of the de fe nse .” ). AFFIRM E D.

3