SAHUC v. TUCKER

JAY C. ZAINEY, Senior District Judge

Before this Court is defendant Lee Tucker and Syed Z.eeshan Mohiuddin's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Costs (Rec. Doc.72) and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) (Rec. Doc 74). Plaintiff Louis Sahuc opposes these motions. The motions, set for hearing on February 25, 2004, are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.

"On February 2, 2004. this Court issued an Order and Reasons in this matter * finding in favor of defendants Lee Tucker and Syed Z.eeshan Mohiuddin. In this Order, the Court instructed that each party was to bear its own costs. Defendants now ask this Court to reconsider its ruling and, in addition, award reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 505. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motions are DENIED.

The Copyright Act authorizes an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing party. Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 505 (2000)). 17 U.S.C. § 505 provides:

In any civil action under this title [copyright infringement], the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party. . . . Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

As the statute makes clear and as the Supreme Court explained inFogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994), recovery of attorney's fees and costs in a copyright action is not automatic. Rather, attorney's fees are awarded to a prevailing party only as a matter of the district court's discretion.Creations Unlimited. Inc. v. McCain. 112 F.3d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Fogerty. 510 U.S. at 534, 114 S.Ct. at 1033). A non-exclusive list of factors such as "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness, and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence," help guide the court's equitable discretion, id (citing Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 156 (3d Cir. 1986)). A prevailing defendant is no less entitled to an award of fees than a prevailing plaintiff. Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534, 114 S.Ct. at 1033.

This Court presided over a three day bench trial in this matter. Even though the Court, in following applicable law, ruled against Mr. Sahuc, the Court is convinced that his claims were brought in good faith. There is absolutely no evidence that this litigation was frivolous, objectively unreasonable, or without proper motive. Therefore, an award of attorney's fees would not serve to deter future meritless litigation brought by other parties. Defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs in conjunction with their defense of the copyright claim is therefore DENIED.