Court Opinion

ID: 9502848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:33:15.595157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:13.817816
License: Public Domain

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Ten months after the plaintiffs brought suit for copyright infringement — after substantial discovery had been conducted and just four weeks before trial was to have begun — plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their complaint because, they said, they discovered that they could not prove that they own the copyright over which they brought suit to begin with. Meantime, the defendants incurred tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees defending the action. Then, after dismissing its case, plaintiff Microhits, Inc. filed an untimely “notice of withdrawal” of its motion to dismiss, causing the defendant to incur still additional attorneys’ fees.
A district court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees in a copyright case, Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1120 (9th Cir.2007), and given the circumstances here, did not abuse its discretion in doing so. With all due respect, my colleagues are effectively reviewing the award de novo. I join the majority in affirming the district court’s denial of the Microhits’ belated notice of withdrawal, but dissent from the reversal of the attorneys’ fee award. I would affirm the district court in full.