12-4430-cv

L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Pretty Girl of Ca., Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 26th 4 day of November, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 CHESTER J. STRAUB,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC., a

13 California Corporation,

14 Plaintiff-Appellant,

15

16 -v.- 12-4430

17

18 PRETTY GIRL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a New

19 York Corporation, individually and

20 doing business as Pretty Girl, PRETTY

21 GIRL, INC., a New York Corporation,

22 ALBERT NIGRI, an individual,

23 Defendants-Appellees,

24

25 and

26

27 Does 1-10,

28 Defendants.

29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

1
1 FOR APPELLANT: DANIELLE DERMESROPIAN (Vano I.

2 Haroutunian, on the brief)

3 Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler,

4 P.C., New York, New York.

5

6 FOR APPELLEES: STEPHEN DONIGER, Doniger /

7 Burroughs, APC, Culver City,

8 California, (Kevin C. Taylor,

9 Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis

10 LLP, New York, New York, on the

11 brief).

12

13

14 Appeal from an order of the United States District

15 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).

16

17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

18 AND DECREED that the order of the district court be

19 AFFIRMED. 

20

21 L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. (“L.A. Printex”) appeals

22 an order of the United States District Court for the

23 Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.), awarding it

24 $40,000 in attorney’s fees in its copyright infringement

25 action against Albert Nigri and his companies, Pretty Girl

26 of California, Inc. and Pretty Girl, Inc. On appeal, L.A.

27 Printex argues that the district court committed an abuse of

28 discretion by failing to award the full $103,385 it

29 requested. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

30 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

31 presented for review. 

32

33 Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a

34 district court may “in its discretion ... award a reasonable

35 attorney’s fee to the prevailing party” in a copyright

36 action. 17 U.S.C. § 505. “When determining whether to

37 award attorneys fees, district courts may consider such

38 factors as (1) the frivolousness of the non-prevailing

39 party’s claims or defenses; (2) the party’s motivation; (3)

40 whether the claims or defenses were objectively

41 unreasonable; and (4) compensation and deterrence.” Bryant

42 v. Media Right Productions, Inc., 603 F.3d 135, 144 (2d Cir.

43 2010). Here, the district court considered these factors,

44 and determined that the defendants “asserted non-frivolous,

2
1 objectively reasonable defenses in a manner consistent with

2 good faith litigation.” It also found that “the substantial

3 judgment rendered by the jury in favor of plaintiff amply

4 serves the compensation and deterrence goals of the

5 Copyright Act.” The $40,000 award was an amount that the

6 defendants conceded was appropriate. 

7

8 The deference exercised in an abuse of discretion

9 review “takes on special significance when reviewing fee

10 decisions because the district court, which is intimately

11 familiar with the nuances of the case, is in a far better

12 position to make such decisions than is an appellate court,

13 which must work from a cold record.” McDaniel v. Cnty. of

14 Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal

15 quotation marks and brackets omitted). Upon reviewing the

16 record, we see no reason to upset the findings of the

17 district court. Nor do we see any basis on which to

18 conclude that the court committed an error of law or abused

19 its discretion.

20

21 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in L.A.

22 Printex’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the order of the

23 district court.

24

25 FOR THE COURT:

26 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

27

3