Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gil Joong Jeon v. Anderson, 8:17-cv-01709-JVS-JDE. (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20190927a14 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . JUDGMENT Plaintiff Gil Joong Jeon ("Plaintiff") brought the present action against Defendants Ben Anderson and Michael Anderson (collectively referred to as "Defendants") alleging infringement under 17 U.S.C. 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act for works identified in Copyright Registration Nos. VAu 1-292-321, VAu 1-292-317, VAu 1-292-319, and VAu 1-292-313
More

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Gil Joong Jeon ("Plaintiff") brought the present action against Defendants Ben Anderson and Michael Anderson (collectively referred to as "Defendants") alleging infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act for works identified in Copyright Registration Nos. VAu 1-292-321, VAu 1-292-317, VAu 1-292-319, and VAu 1-292-313 (collectively referred as "Plaintiff's Copyright Registrations"). See Dkt. No. 20.

On or about November 8, 2018, Defendants brought a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing against the validity of Plaintiff's Copyright Registrations and the viability of Plaintiff's copyright infringement claim. The hearing was set for December 17, 2018. See Dkt. Nos. 42 to 43-47.

On or about December 17, 2019, the Court deferred its decision on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pending advice from the Register of Copyrights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §411(b)(2) to determine whether the Copyright Office would have refused registration had it known that some works contained in an application for registration of an "unpublished collection" had previously been published. See Dkt. No. 47.

On or about March 6, 2019, the Register of Copyrights issued its response indicating that "had the Office been aware that the Works had been published prior to the date Plaintiff submitted its applications, the Office would have refused to register the works as part of an unpublished collection." See Dkt. No. 52, 52-1.

On or about June 14, 2019, the Court issued its ruling granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and found that attorneys' fees for Defendants are warranted under the circumstance. See Dkt. No. 61.

On or about June 26, 2019, Defendants filed supporting supplemental documentation specifying the reasonable time spent and reasonable rates of counsel for a lodestar analysis. See Dkt. Nos. 63, 63-1. Plaintiff was given seven (7) days thereafter to respond with any objections. No objections were filed.

After considering the moving and opposing papers, and all supporting evidence, including the Register of Copyrights' response dated March 6, 2019, and all other matters presented to the Court, the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES the following:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on the merits and Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of their Complaint.

2. Defendants' request for attorneys' fees is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff shall pay Defendants' attorneys' fees in the total amount of $77,280.90.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer