Opinion ID: 734276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: columbia's fees

Text: 60 The decision to award fees, and the amount of fees awarded, are both reviewed for abuse of discretion. Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 886 F.2d 1545, 1556 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S.Ct. 1321, 108 L.Ed.2d 496 (1990). While a plaintiff in a copyright action is generally awarded fees by virtue of prevailing in the action, the plaintiff still bears the burden of showing the time spent and hourly rate to be reasonable. Id. at 1556-57. Feltner challenges the district court's fee award on three grounds: (1) Feltner was not given enough time to oppose it; (2) there was no effort to delete items related to unrelated matters; and (3) the district court granted Columbia all of the fees requested without providing any discussion or explanation. 61 Feltner's first two challenges miss the mark. As to the first, Feltner has not demonstrated that the district court's refusal to grant a two-week continuance was an abuse of discretion. The district court did grant a one-week continuance, giving Feltner two weeks to prepare an opposition. As to the second, Feltner has not cited any specifics in support of his contention that some entries were not reasonably necessary to the successful prosecution of [Columbia's] copyright claims, Frank Music, 886 F.2d at 1557, and has therefore failed to show that the district court's refusal to delete any entries was an abuse of discretion. 62 Feltner's third challenge, however, has merit. This Circuit has a long-standing insistence upon a proper explanation of any fee award by a district court. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 623 (9th Cir.1993); see also Frank Music, 886 F.2d at 1557 (In setting a reasonable attorneys fee, the district court should make specific findings of the rate and hours it has determined to be reasonable.); Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir.1984) (The district court appears to have accepted uncritical plaintiff's representations concerning the time expended on this case, and it awarded the entire amount requested by plaintiff. Such a procedure is inadequate.). The district court, rather than providing a reasoned explanation of its fee award, simply included the entire amount requested in the final judgment. Thus, without expressing any opinion on whether or not the fees claimed were reasonable, we must vacate the district court's fee award and remand the matter so that the district court may provide a reasoned explanation supporting the amount of fees awarded.