Corcoran v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
CORCORAN v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hollzer (author)
Analysis
The court resolved a pending motion for attorney's fees in a copyright infringement case that had been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $400 in attorney's fees to each of the two defendants, finding the action was filed without justification.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants Montgomery Ward & Company and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. are awarded attorney's fees of $400 each.“it is ordered that defendant Montgomery Ward & Company and defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., are each allowed the sum of $400 as attorney’s fees, in addition to all other costs herein incurred.” | agree with court The court's decision to award fees is supported by the recital that the action was filed 'without justification, either in law or in fact.' In copyright litigation, courts have inherent authority to award fees to defendants who are forced to defend against meritless claims, particularly when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case after failing to comply with court orders to clarify the basis of the claim (such as copyright notice). The finding of lack of justification provides the necessary basis for the fee award. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short, procedural resolution of a fee dispute following a voluntary dismissal. It recites the procedural history (dismissal of specific causes of action, order to file better statement, failure to file, voluntary dismissal) and the factual finding (lack of justification). While it does not cite specific precedents for the fee award, the reasoning is internally consistent and follows standard practice for awarding fees against a plaintiff who files a meritless claim and then dismisses it. It is 'sound' in the context of a district court order resolving a fee petition, though 'sound with gaps' if one expects explicit citation to the statutory or inherent authority for the fee award.
Opinion — Hollzer
HOLLZER, District Judge.
It appearing that on December 13, 1938, plaintiff filed this action for damages for alleged infringement of copyright, that on January 25, 1939, defendants filed motions to dismiss, and for a further and better statement and particulars and for attorneys’ fees, one of the grounds for the motions to dismiss being that plaintiff had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, in that the' complaint failed to allege that publication with notice of copyright had been made of the work alleged to be infringed by defendants; and It further appearing that briefs were filed by the parties hereto, and a hearing was had on said motions to dismiss, whereupon the motion of defendant Montgomery Ward and Company, Inc., to dismiss the first cause of action, and the motion of defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., to dismiss the second cause of action, were granted without leave to amend, and plaintiff was, on March 25, 1939, ordered to file *422within twenty-one days thereafter a further and better statement of the nature of his claim, with respect to whether or not he published .his work with notice of copyright, and whether he deposited in the Copyright Office a published copy of his work containing a notice of copyright; and It further appearing that, without filing such further and better statement, plaintiff, on April 6, 1939, filed a motion to dismiss his complaint without prejudice, and with costs taxed against the plaintiff; and It further appearing that on July 14, 1939, after counsel for both parties had filed briefs, and after a hearing had been had, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, with allowance of costs to the defendants and such attorneys’ fees as might tnereafter be awarded, the court reserving jurisdiction to pass upon the matter of attorney’s fees; and It further appearing that by reason of the filing and prosecution of this action defendants have been wrongfully subjected to the expense of legal services rendered by counsel on their behalf:
The Court concludes that this action was filed without justification, either in law or in fact, and that each of said defendants is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee.
For the reasons set forth in the memorandum of conclusions this day filed, it is ordered that defendant Montgomery Ward & Company and defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., are each allowed the sum of $400 as attorney’s fees, in addition to all other costs herein incurred.