Bennouchene v. Videoapp, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-06318
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bennouchene v. Videoapp, Judge Wang denied Videoapp’s motions for attorney’s fees and entry of judgment after Bennouchene voluntarily dismissed the copyright case.
Videoapp was denied its requests for attorney’s fees and costs and for entry of judgment; Bennouchene’s voluntary dismissal remained effective.
What happened
Bennouchene v. Videoapp, Inc. involved claims that Videoapp distributed and licensed Michel Eric Bennouchene’s copyrighted works without permission, and breached their licensing agreement. Before Videoapp responded to the complaint, Bennouchene voluntarily dismissed the action.
Videoapp asked for $6,741.50 in attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 68, arguing that the dismissal gave Bennouchene a less favorable result than the rejected offer of judgment. Bennouchene then asked the court to enter a judgment dismissing the case without prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied both motions. She ruled that Rule 68 did not apply because Bennouchene had not obtained a judgment, and that entry of judgment under Rule 58 was unnecessary because the voluntary dismissal had already ended the case.
The detailed version
- Bennouchene v. Videoapp, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06318
- George Daniels
- Jan. 30, 2020
Background
Michel Eric Bennouchene, doing business as EMBV Media, brought copyright-infringement, breach-of-contract, and accounting claims against Videoapp, Inc., which the opinion identifies as a Nevis corporation doing business as PPVNetworks. Bennouchene alleged that Videoapp continued sublicensing his works to third-party video-on-demand companies and distributing them on DVDs after the licensing agreement ended. He also alleged that Videoapp’s websites used a movie that was not covered by the agreement.
Bennouchene filed the complaint on July 8, 2019. On September 3, 2019, Videoapp made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The offer was not accepted. Before Videoapp served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Bennouchene voluntarily dismissed the action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The opinion states that no judgment had been entered.
Videoapp’s Rule 68 motion
Videoapp sought $6,741.50 in attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 68. Rule 68 generally requires an offeree to pay post-offer costs when the judgment the offeree ultimately obtains is not more favorable than the rejected offer. Videoapp argued that Bennouchene’s voluntary dismissal amounted to a zero-dollar recovery and was therefore less favorable than the offer.
Judge Wang rejected that argument. She explained that Rule 68 applies only when the offeree obtains a judgment. Bennouchene’s voluntary dismissal did not operate as a judgment, and Bennouchene had not obtained one. The court therefore denied Videoapp’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees under Rule 68.
Videoapp’s Rule 58 motion
Videoapp also sought entry of a judgment under Rule 58 dismissing Bennouchene’s claims without prejudice. The court ruled that this would not change the Rule 68 analysis because Rule 68 concerns a judgment obtained by the offeree, not one sought by the offeror.
The court also concluded that entry of judgment was unnecessary. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), the voluntary dismissal had already terminated the case when Bennouchene filed it, without requiring court action. Judge Wang therefore denied Videoapp’s Rule 58 motion as well.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang denied both Videoapp’s Rule 68 motion for costs and attorney’s fees and its Rule 58 motion for entry of judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entries for those motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.