Court Opinion

ID: 9521467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:05:36.228852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:48.593971
License: Public Domain

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I write separately to address the majority’s implication that the District Court erred because “[wjhile Lieb designated damages as a relevant factor, ... they are more properly considered as an indication of a litigant’s degree of success.” Maj. Typescript at 107. The majority bases this statement on Washington v. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a civil rights case in which we explained that proportionality between damages and attorneys’ fees should not be considered because “success in civil rights litigation ‘cannot be valued solely in monetary terms.’ ” 89 F.3d at 1042 n. 8 (emphasis added). By contrast, many copyright cases involve no dignitary or constitutional rights, and therefore can be valued solely in monetary terms. In such cases, damages are the best “indication of a litigant’s degree of success” and district courts do not err by awarding attorneys’ fees in proportion to such damages.