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

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L** **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 26 th** **day of November, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **CHESTER J. STRAUB,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC., a** 12 **California Corporation**
, 13 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  14 15 **-v.- 12-4430** 16 17 **PRETTY GIRL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a New** 18 **York Corporation, individually and** 19 **doing business as Pretty Girl, PRETTY** 20 **GIRL, INC., a New York Corporation,** 21 **ALBERT NIGRI, an individual,** 22 **Defendants-Appellees ,**  23 24 **and** 25 26 **Does 1-10,** 27 **Defendants**

**.** 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 29

1**FOR APPELLANT:** DANIELLE DERMESROPIAN (Vano I. 1 Haroutunian, on the brief ) 2 Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, 3 P.C., New York, New York. 4 5 **FOR APPELLEES:** STEPHEN DONIGER, Doniger / 6 Burroughs, APC, Culver City, 7 California, (Kevin C. Taylor, 8 Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis 9 LLP, New York, New York, on the 10 brief ). 11 12 13 Appeal from an order of the United States District 14 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J. ). 15 16 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 17 **AND DECREED**that the order of the district court be 18 **AFFIRMED**

. 19 20 L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. (“L.A. Printex”) appeals 21 an order of the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of New York (Forrest, J. ), awarding it 23 $40,000 in attorney’s fees in its copyright infringement 24 action against Albert Nigri and his companies, Pretty Girl 25 of California, Inc. and Pretty Girl, Inc. On appeal, L.A. 26 Printex argues that the district court committed an abuse of 27 discretion by failing to award the full $103,385 it 28 requested. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 29 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 30 presented for review. 31 32 Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a 33 district court may “in its discretion ... award a reasonable 34 attorney’s fee to the prevailing party” in a copyright 35 action. 17 U.S.C. § 505. “When determining whether to 36 award attorneys fees, district courts may consider such 37 factors as (1) the frivolousness of the non-prevailing 38 party’s claims or defenses; (2) the party’s motivation; (3) 39 whether the claims or defenses were objectively 40 unreasonable; and (4) compensation and deterrence.” Bryant 41 v. Media Right Productions, Inc. , 603 F.3d 135, 144 (2d Cir. 42 2010). Here, the district court considered these factors, 43 and determined that the defendants “asserted non-frivolous, 44

2objectively reasonable defenses in a manner consistent with 1 good faith litigation.” It also found that “the substantial 2 judgment rendered by the jury in favor of plaintiff amply 3 serves the compensation and deterrence goals of the 4 Copyright Act.” The $40,000 award was an amount that the 5 defendants conceded was appropriate. 6 7 The deference exercised in an abuse of discretion 8 review “takes on special significance when reviewing fee 9 decisions because the district court, which is intimately 10 familiar with the nuances of the case, is in a far better 11 position to make such decisions than is an appellate court, 12 which must work from a cold record.” McDaniel v. Cnty. of 13 Schenectady , 595 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal 14 quotation marks and brackets omitted) . Upon reviewing the 15 record, we see no reason to upset the findings of the 16 district court. Nor do we see any basis on which to 17 conclude that the court committed an error of law or abused 18 its discretion. 19 20 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in L.A. 21 Printex’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the order of the 22 district court. 23 24 FOR THE COURT: 25 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 26 27

3