Frye v. Lagerstrom
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:15-cv-05348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Frye v. Lagerstrom, Judge Buchwald denied Frye’s motion for additional attorneys’ fees because the renewed summary-judgment proceedings were avoidable.
Joseph Frye’s request for additional attorneys’ fees was denied. The order concerned the fee consequences of proceedings involving Benjamin F. Lagerstrom and Dianacollv, Inc.
What happened
In Frye v. Lagerstrom, Joseph Frye asked the court for attorneys’ fees beyond the $21,450 it had already awarded. The request followed a renewed summary-judgment motion and a pending appeal by Benjamin F. Lagerstrom.
The court said the renewed motion was necessary because Frye’s lawyer had not given Lagerstrom, who was representing himself, the required notice explaining how to oppose summary judgment. Because Frye’s failure to provide that notice caused later filings that might otherwise have been unnecessary, the court found additional fees unwarranted.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied Frye’s motion for additional attorneys’ fees. The ruling resolved the fee motion while Lagerstrom’s appeal remained pending.
The detailed version
- Frye v. Lagerstrom · No. 1:15-cv-05348
- Naomi Buchwald
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
Joseph Frye previously obtained summary judgment on copyright-infringement and breach-of-contract claims against Benjamin F. Lagerstrom and Dianacollv, Inc. The court later awarded Frye $21,450 in attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, and entered judgment for him.
Lagerstrom appealed. The Second Circuit vacated the court’s grant of summary judgment because Lagerstrom had not been properly advised that he needed to submit affidavits or other documentary evidence addressing each genuine issue of material fact he wanted to preserve for trial. After the case returned to the district court, the court directed Frye to file a renewed summary-judgment motion and provided Lagerstrom with the required notice for a self-represented party, along with the relevant federal and local rules. The court granted Frye’s renewed motion and directed entry of a judgment identical to the earlier judgment, including the $21,450 fee award.
Lagerstrom filed another appeal, which was pending before the Second Circuit when Frye sought additional attorneys’ fees. The district court concluded that it had authority to decide the fee request because courts retain jurisdiction over collateral matters such as attorneys’ fees during an appeal.
Reasoning
The court relied on Local Civil Rule 56.2, which requires a represented party moving for summary judgment against a self-represented party to provide a specific notice and the texts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1. Frye’s counsel had not provided that notice with the initial summary-judgment motion.
The court reasoned that, had Frye complied with the rule in 2016, filings after the court’s June 27, 2018 order might not have been necessary. Under those circumstances, the court found an award of additional fees unwarranted.
Ruling
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied Frye’s motion for additional attorneys’ fees and stated that the order resolved docket entry 256.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.