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

M AR SHALL & SW IFT/B OEC KH, LLC , Pla intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. DEW B ER R

Y & DAVIS LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And UR S C OR POR

ATION, De fe nda

nt. No. 12-57221 D.C . No. 2:08-C V-04375

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ga ry A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 8, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
D EC 09 2014
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : SILVER M AN a nd B EA, C irc u it Judge s, a nd B ELL, Distric t Judge

. *** De wbe rry & Da vis LLC (“ De wbe rry ” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s d en i al o f

a ttorne y ’ s fe e s in its fa

vor unde r § 505 of the C opy right Ac t. W e a ffirm

. W e re vie w a n orde r de ny ing a ttorne y ’ s fe e s u n de r the C opy right Ac t for a

buse of disc re tion. Halic k

i F ilms, LLC v . Sande rson Sale s & Mk t g , 5 4 7 F.3d 1213, 1220 (9th C ir. 2008). Unde r this sta nda rd, we re vie w fa c tua l findings for c le a r e rror, a n d le ga l c onc lusions d e novo. Lov e v . Assoc . N e w spape rs, Ltd. , 611 F.3d 601, 614 (9th C ir. 2010) (c i t ing Barrie ntos v . 1801-1825 Morton LLC , 5 83 F.3d 1197, 1207 (9th C ir. 2009)). The distric t c ourt did n ot le ga lly e rr by fa iling to a c c ord De wb er r y a s t rong pre s um ption of e ntitle m e nt to a fe e a wa rd. The C opy right Ac t provide s tha t the c ourt

“ m a y ” a wa rd a re a sona

ble a ttorne y ’ s fe e to t he p r ev ai ling pa rty
. 17 U .S.C

. § 505.

“ [A] ttorne y ’ s fe e s a re to be a wa rde d to pre v a iling pa rtie s only a s a m at t er of the

c ourt’ s disc re tion.” F

oge rty v . Fanta s

y, I n c . , 510 U.S. 5 17, 534 (1994). Se e also Fantasy , Inc

. v . F oge rty , 94 F.3d 553, 555 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ [A] n a wa rd o f a ttorne y ’ s fe e s t o a pre va iling de fe nda

nt tha t furthe rs the unde rly i ng purpose s of the C opy right A ct is re pose d in t

he sound disc re t ion of t

he distric t c ourts.” ). C onside ra tions t h at

*** The Honora

ble R obe rt Holm e s B e ll, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of M ic h iga n, sitting by

de s igna tion. 2guide the e xer ci se o f t ha t disc re tion inc lude “ (1) the de gre e of suc c e ss obta ine d; (2)

frivolousne ss; (3) m otiva

tion; (4) the obje c tive unre a sona b le ne ss of the losing pa

rty ’ s fa c t ua l a nd le ga l a rgum e n t s; a nd (5) the ne e d, in pa rtic ula r c irc um sta

nc e s , to a dva

nc e
c onside ra tions o f co m

p e nsa tion a nd de te rre nc e .” Lov e , 6 11 F.3d a t 614-15 (c iting J ac k son v . Ax ton , 25 F.3d 884, 890 (9th C i r. 1994)). In a pply ing the se fa c tors, a c ourt should b e “ fa ithful to the purpose s of the C opy right A c t.” Foger t

y , 5 1 0 U .S. a t 534 n.19. The Se ve n th C irc uit ha s “ re fine d” the Foge rty sta n da rd to a dd a

pre sum ption t h at t he pre va iling pa

rty is e ntitle d to a n a wa rd of fe e s unde r § 505, a nd a strong pre s um ption if t he p re va iling pa

rty is the de fe n da

nt. Mostly M

e morie s, Inc

. v . For Your Ease Only

, Inc ., 526 F.3d 1093, 1099 (7th C ir. 2008) (c iting W o odhav e n Home

s & Re alty , Inc

. v . Hotz , 396 F.3d 822, 824-25 (7th C ir. 2 005); Asse ssme nt Te c hs. of W

I, LLC v . W IREdata, Inc ., 361 F.3d 434, 436-37 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 004)). Unlike the Se ve nth Ci r c uit, we ha ve c ontinue d to a pply the fa c tors outline d in Foge rty without a pre s um ption. Se e , e .g. , Lov e , 611 F.3d a t 614-15; Halic k i , 547 F.3d a t 1230; Fantasy , 94 F.3d a t 560. Se e a lso Lav a Re c ords, LLC v . Amurao , 3 54 F. App’ x 461, 463 (2d C ir. 2009) (e xpre s sly

re je c ting a pre sum p tion in fa vor of a wa rding a t torne y ’ s fe e s to pre v a i ling de fe n da

n t s in c o py

right c a s e s). The dis tric t c o urt’ s fa ilure to a pply a pre s um ption is not le ga l e rror. 3Ne ithe r did the distric t c ou r t l eg a lly e rr b y a pply ing a bla

m e w o rthine ss or
c ulpa bility sta nda rd tha t wa s re

je c te d in Fantasy

. Se e F antasy , 94 F.3d a t 558 (“ [B ] la m e worthine ss is not a pre re quisite to a wa rding fe e s t o a pre va iling de fe nda nt.” ) Although the d istric t c ourt introduc e d its orde r by noting tha t the re m u s t be som e showing by the pre va iling pa rty tha t the a c tio n was brought ba se d on frivolous or
unre a s ona

ble g r o unds, this m issta

te m e nt wa s c ure d whe n the distric t c ourt c orre c tly note d tha t its disc re tion t o aw ar d f ee s did not re quire a finding of ba d fa ith or bla m e worthine ss a nd the re a fte r c onside re d e a c h o f the fa c tor s sugge ste d in Foge rty
. B e c a use t he distric t c ourt did not re st its de c ision sole ly on the la c k o f frivolousne ss
or unre a sona

ble ne ss, we a re sa tisfie d tha t it a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd in ruling on De wbe rry ’ s m o tion for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s. The distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t w e re n ot c le a rly e rrone ous a s the y we re not

“ ‘ illogic a l, im

pla usible , or without support in infe re n c e s tha t m a y be dra wn from the fa c t s in the re c ord.’ ” Arc of C alifornia v . Douglas , 757 F.3d 9 75 , 983-84 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting M.R. v . Dre y fus , 697 F.3d 7 0 6 , 7 2 5 (9th C ir. 2012)). M ore o ve r, the distric t c ourt’ s fa ilu r e to e m bra c e D e wbe rry ’ s spe c ific a rgum e nts a nd its fa ilure to
we igh the fa c tors in the m a n ne r sugge ste d b y D e wbe rry we re within the “ wide la titude ” gra nte d to district co ur t s in e x e rc ising the ir d isc re t ion with re spe c t to the

a wa rd of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r § 505. Entm’t Re se arc h G rp., Inc

. v . Ge ne

sis C re ativ e 4Grp., Inc ., 1 22 F.3d 1211, 1229 (9th C ir. 1997); se e F oge rty , 510 U.S. a t 534 (noting tha t “ ‘ [T] he re is n o pre c ise rule or form ula for m a king [fe e ] d e te rm ina tions’ ” in

c opy right c a se s) (quoting H

e nsle y v . E c k e rhart , 461 U.S

. 4 24 , 436 (1983)). The distric t c ourt r eas ona

bly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion in de n y ing a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a n d

a de qua te ly

e xpla ine d its ba sis for doing so. AFFIRM E D

.

5