United King Film Distribution Ltd v. Does 1-10, d/b/a Israeli-tv.com

Background

The order addresses three related copyright infringement actions: 21 Civ. 11024, involving defendants doing business as ISRAEL.TV; 21 Civ. 11025, involving defendants doing business as ISRAELI-TV.COM; and 21 Civ. 11026, involving defendants doing business as SDAROT.COM. The plaintiffs in each case were United King Film Distribution Ltd., D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd., Hot Communication Systems Ltd., Charlton Ltd., Reshet Media Ltd., and Keshet Broadcasting Ltd.

The plaintiffs obtained expedited discovery and permission to serve the defendants by alternate means. The defendants did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaints, and the court entered default judgments on April 26, 2022. Those judgments stated that attorneys’ fees and costs would be addressed in a separate order. The plaintiffs then requested a combined $92,525.71 in attorneys’ fees and $13,174.97 in costs.

Legal standard

Under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. The court considered factors including whether the claims or defenses were frivolous, the parties’ motivation, objective reasonableness, compensation, and deterrence. It found an award appropriate because the defendants had defaulted after engaging in a “breathtaking amount” of infringement, their infringement had been found willful, and an award would further deter copyright infringement.

The court calculated fees using the “lodestar,” meaning a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. It also reviewed the billing records to exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary work.

Attorneys’ fees

The plaintiffs’ attorney requested compensation based on approximately 168.23 hours at $550 per hour. The court instead found that $450 per hour was reasonable, citing the small size of the law firm and the relatively straightforward theory of recovery. Although the attorney had practiced since 1989 and specialized in copyright and trademark matters, the court noted that the plaintiffs had not shown that they had actually paid the invoices at the requested rates.

The court also reduced the compensable hours to 134, approximately a 20% reduction. It found that some work had been performed at a level better suited to a junior lawyer or paralegal and that travel time had been billed at the full rate rather than the 50% rate commonly used in the district. The court awarded $60,300 in attorneys’ fees.

Costs and allocation

The court reviewed the requested costs, which included filing fees, process-server expenses, computer-assisted legal research, and transcript fees. It found that the $13,174.97 in costs were supported and fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct, and awarded that full amount.

The court declined to impose the entire fee and cost award jointly and severally on the defendants in all three cases. Although the complaints showed considerable copyright infringement, the court found no corresponding evidence of concerted action among the three groups of defendants. Because the billing records and attorney’s declaration did not permit a more specific allocation, the court divided the award equally among the three cases.

Disposition

The court awarded $60,300 in attorneys’ fees and $13,174.97 in costs, for a total of $73,474.97. It assessed $20,100 in attorneys’ fees and $4,391.66 in costs against the defendants in each of 21 Civ. 11024, 21 Civ. 11025, and 21 Civ. 11026. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the order in all three cases and terminate all pending motions.