Anderson v. Seliger
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-05630
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Anderson v. Seliger, Judge Davila denied Anderson’s motion for $62,992.50 in copyright-related attorney fees and costs.
Erik Anderson’s request for attorney fees and costs was denied; the ruling also addressed defendants Steven Hirsch and Mark Seliger’s jurisdiction argument.
What happened
In Anderson v. Seliger, Erik Anderson sought attorney fees and costs after users of his former website’s forum posted links to photographs taken by Steven Hirsch and Mark Seliger. Anderson removed the posts, filed a lawsuit seeking declarations about copyright liability, and later voluntarily dismissed the case after the defendants issued irrevocable licenses.
Anderson argued that he was the winning party under the Copyright Act because his lawsuit led the defendants to eliminate the risk of future copyright claims. The defendants argued that the court lacked authority to decide the fee request after the case ended. The court rejected that jurisdiction argument but concluded that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice did not make Anderson a winning party because it did not legally prevent future claims.
The court held that the licenses, the earlier order denying dismissal, and the lawsuit’s effect on the defendants did not provide the court-ordered relief required for a fee award. Judge Edward J. Davila therefore denied Anderson’s motion for attorney fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Seliger · No. 5:19-cv-05630
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
Erik Anderson was the former owner of AwardsWatch.com, a website containing his original film-related content, other written material, and a public discussion forum. Users posted comments containing deep links to photographs taken by defendants Steven Hirsch and Mark Seliger. The photographs were hosted elsewhere and were never posted or stored on Anderson’s website server. Anderson alleged that he did not create or know about the links, did not encourage them, and received no financial benefit from them. After the defendants complained, he promptly removed the posts.
The defendants’ lawyers sent demand letters accusing Anderson of copyright infringement and demanding thousands of dollars for licenses. Anderson then filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking rulings that posting deep links to photographs on other websites was not copyright infringement and that he was not legally responsible for users’ posts absent his own voluntary conduct or a direct financial benefit.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot and that Anderson lacked standing. The court rejected those arguments because the licenses offered at that time did not protect Anderson from future lawsuits, did not cover forum users, and covered only the three photographs identified in the complaint. The court also held that Anderson had standing to seek a declaration concerning his potential liability for posts made while he owned the forum. After Anderson indicated that he planned to seek summary judgment, the defendants issued irrevocable licenses. Anderson then voluntarily dismissed the action.
Fee request and jurisdiction
Anderson moved for $62,992.50 in attorney fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505, which allows a court to award reasonable fees to a prevailing party in a copyright action. The defendants argued that the court no longer had jurisdiction because the main case had ended. The court rejected that argument, holding that a district court retains authority to decide collateral matters—issues separate from the merits, such as attorney fees—after a case is dismissed.
Prevailing-party analysis
The court applied the rule that a party generally must receive court-ordered relief or a judgment that materially changes the parties’ legal relationship to qualify as a prevailing party. It relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice ordinarily does not create that change because the plaintiff may still refile the claims.
The court held that Anderson was not a prevailing party because the case ended with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The defendants’ irrevocable licenses did not change that conclusion. The court also rejected Anderson’s arguments that the unusual procedural posture, the fact that the case became moot through events during the litigation, the earlier order denying dismissal, or public-policy concerns about alleged copyright “trolling” justified an award. The court stated that awarding fees based on the lawsuit’s influence on the defendants would improperly rely on a theory that fees may be awarded merely because litigation prompted a voluntary change in conduct.
Disposition
The court DENIED Anderson’s motion for attorney fees and costs. Judge Edward J. Davila did not award the requested $62,992.50.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.