Court Opinion

ID: 9957726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 00:01:08.255893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.846401
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30449           Document: 68-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/04/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                           April 4, 2024
                                   No. 23-30449                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                 ____________

Alexander Ackel,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Kayla Lawrence Martynenko,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 2:21-CV-542
                  ______________________________

Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Plaintiff-Appellant Alexander Ackel appeals the district court’s ruling
denying his motion for attorneys’ fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). We
AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons it assigned.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30449       Document: 68-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                 No. 23-30449

              Facts and Procedural Background
       This case emerges out of the contentious divorce between the
Plaintiff-Appellant, Alexander Ackel, and the Defendant-Appellee, Kayla
Martynenko. Following their divorce, Ackel filed this suit alleging that
Martynenko had accessed several of his electronic accounts without
authorization, violating (1) the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§
2701-2712 (the “SCA”); (2) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1030; and (3) Plaintiff’s right to privacy through unreasonable intrusion
upon his seclusion under Louisiana Law. After trial, a jury found Martynenko
liable under the SCA and Louisiana law, and awarded Ackel $7,500 for
economic loss, $1,500 for mental anguish, and $10,000 in punitive damages.
       After the verdict, Ackel moved the district court for $42,113 in
attorneys’ fees under the SCA, arguing that he was entitled to them as the
successful party in this action. The district court denied his motion, finding
that an award of attorneys’ fees was discretionary under the SCA, and that
Ackel was not entitled to them. The district court cited precedent from both
in and out of circuit supporting the denial of the fees because Ackel had
“unclean hands.” Specifically, it found that:
       Ackel litigated in an unbecoming manner, essentially
       commandeering this Court to inappropriately relitigate his
       domestic and custody disputes with his ex-wife. Additionally,
       during the jury trial Ackel repeatedly perjured himself by
       denying all abuse of Martynenko in the face of overwhelming
       evidence. Moreover, nearly every question asked of Ackel
       spawned a recitation of his marital grievances, which revealed
       the true purpose of his lawsuit.

       Ackel then appealed, claiming the district court (1) abused its
discretion when it failed to award him attorneys’ fees, and (2)

                                      2
Case: 23-30449        Document: 68-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                  No. 23-30449

deprived him of fundamental due process rights when it concluded
that Ackel committed perjury.
                      Standard of Review
       The award of attorneys’ fees for violations of the SCA is left to
the district court’s discretion, and we review that decision for an
abuse of discretion. Domain Prot., L.L.C. v. Sea Wasp, L.L.C., 23
F.4th 529, 538 (5th Cir. 2022) (“Attorney’s fees are . . . discretionary
when a plaintiff proves a violation of the Stored Communications
Act.”); see also Vista Mktg., LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954, 977 (11th
Cir. 2016) (holding that under the SCA, “[w]e may reverse a district
court’s decision to deny attorney’s fees only if we find that the district
court abused its discretion”).
                            Discussion
   A. Attorneys’ Fees
       The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Ackel’s motion for attorneys’ fees. “A district court abuses its
discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or on
a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” CenterPoint Energy
Houston Elec. L.L.C. v. Harris Cnty. Toll Rd. Auth., 436 F.3d 541, 550
(5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir.
2005)). Ackel argues that the district court’s decision to deny his
motion “was not an application of the proper legal standards” because
“the lower court should never have considered the ‘significance’ of
the harm to Mr. Ackel” and because its reasoning “contradicts the
findings of the jury awarding actual and punitive damages.”
       His argument fails for two reasons. First, Ackel did not cite a
single case supporting his assertions that the district court’s

                                        3
Case: 23-30449        Document: 68-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                 No. 23-30449

consideration of the significance of the harm to Ackel was improper,
or that its reasoning contradicted the jury’s damage awards. Even if
he did manage to preserve the issue for appeal, we find his briefing
unconvincing. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th
Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument . . . by failing to adequately
brief the argument on appeal.”).
       Second, despite Ackel’s claims to the contrary, the district
court followed our precedent in Domain Protection, when it denied his
motion. See 23 F.4th at 538. There, we found that when denying a
motion for attorneys’ fees under the SCA, “[t]he district court
reasonably exercised [its] discretion in denying fees based on its
finding that ‘Domain Protection has time and again litigated in an
unbecoming manner, distorted the record, and misstated the law.’”
Id. Similarly, here, the district denied Ackel’s request for attorneys’
fees because “he litigated in an unbecoming manner” and
“repeatedly perjured himself by denying all abuse of Martynenko in
the face of overwhelming evidence.” This was well within the bounds
of its discretion outlined by Domain Protection.
       Further, we find Ackel’s attempts to distinguish Domain
Protection unavailing. He argues that that this case is distinct because
in Domain Protection, the plaintiff merely won on liability, whereas the
jury here awarded him actual and punitive damages. But that is a
distinction without a difference. In Domain Protection, we upheld the
district court’s denial of a motion for attorneys’ fees because it based
that decision on findings about the manner in which the plaintiff
litigated, not the damages award. See Domain Prot., 23 F.4th at 538. So
too did the district court here when it found that he “litigated in an
unbecoming manner.” Thus, we find the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it denied Ackel’s motion for attorneys’ fees.

                                       4
Case: 23-30449        Document: 68-1       Page: 5   Date Filed: 04/04/2024

                                 No. 23-30449

   B. Due Process
       Ackel also argues that the district court’s conclusion that he
committed perjury “violated Mr. Ackel’s fundamental due process
rights that require ‘notice’ and ‘the opportunity to be heard.’” But
Ackel fails to provide any support to this base assertion. Because he
failed to adequately brief this argument, he forfeits it on appeal. See
Rollins, 8 F.4th at 397.
                           Conclusion
       For these reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.

                                       5