Velasquez v. 2048 Partners LLC
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-06184
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Velasquez v. 2048 Partners LLC, Judge Donato denied defendants’ request for copyright-law fees and costs after dismissal of Velasquez’s visual-art-rights claim.
The ruling affects defendants, who were denied their request for attorney’s fees and costs, and Jose Meza Velasquez, who was not ordered to pay those requested amounts under this order.
What happened
In Jose Meza Velasquez v. 2048 Partners, LLC, et al., defendants asked for attorney’s fees and costs under the Copyright Act after the court dismissed Velasquez’s claim under the Visual Artists Rights Act, a law protecting certain artists’ rights in their work.
The court said the claim was not so unreasonable that fees were justified. The claim involved a legal issue with little case law and required research into events from decades earlier. The defendants also did not achieve a total victory because the court declined to decide most of Velasquez’s state-law claims, leaving him free to pursue them in state court. The court found no improper motive and said awarding fees would not further the Copyright Act’s goals.
The court denied the motion for fees and costs. Judge Donato signed the order on June 5, 2020.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. 2048 Partners LLC · No. 3:18-cv-06184
- James Donato
- June 5, 2020
Background
Defendants moved for attorney’s fees and costs under the Copyright Act after the court dismissed Velasquez’s claim under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A. The request was made under docket entry 77.
Legal standard
Under Copyright Act § 505, 17 U.S.C. § 505, a court has discretion to award full costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, to a prevailing party. The court may consider factors including whether the losing party’s claim was frivolous or objectively unreasonable, whether the party had an improper motive, and whether an award would advance compensation or deterrence in a way consistent with the purposes of copyright law. The fact that a party lost does not, by itself, establish that the party’s position was objectively unreasonable.
Court’s analysis
The court acknowledged that the VARA claim had been dismissed but concluded that it was not so unreasonable from the beginning that defendants should recover their fees. The claim required two rounds of motions and turned on the element of removability, which the court described as having little development in the case law. Velasquez also had to research events dating back several decades. Although he ultimately could not plausibly allege the facts required to establish removability, the court said the claim was not an empty shell from the outset.
The court also determined that defendants had not achieved total victory. After dismissing the VARA claim, the court declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to consider the California state-law claims because the VARA claim was the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. The court had expressly stated that Velasquez could pursue those claims in state court. Those claims made up most of the amended complaint and included a claim under the California Art Preservation Act, California Civil Code § 987.
The court found no persuasive evidence that Velasquez brought the VARA claim or the case for an improper purpose. It noted that he alleged, without meaningful dispute from defendants, that he was the artist who painted a mural with significant community value. The court also concluded that awarding fees would not serve copyright-law compensation or deterrence goals and could undermine the goal of encouraging original artistic expression.
Disposition
The motion for fees and costs was denied. Judge James Donato entered the order on June 5, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.