Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, No. 12-17810 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff, an artist, prevailed on a contributory copyright infringement claim against ELW, a publisher of her artwork, the district court awarded her attorney fees under a fee-shifting provision contained in the parties' publishing contract. Both parties appealed. Primarily at issue was whether the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., precluded enforcement of a contractual attorney fees provision in copyright-based litigation. The court concluded that the Copyright Act does not bar an award of attorney fees under the circumstances but held that the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the majority of plaintiff’s requested fees without adequate explanation. The court affirmed the district court’s pretrial order setting the issues for trial and affirm its orders denying plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and for leave to amend. The court concluded that, although the district court correctly determined that plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees, the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the majority of plaintiff’s requested fees and failing to provide an adequate explanation for its calculations. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Copyright. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment in a copyright case. The plaintiff prevailed on a contributory copyright infringement claim against a publisher of her artwork, and the district court awarded her attorney fees pursuant to a fee-shifting provision contained in the parties’ publishing contract. Vacating in part, the panel held that the Copyright Act did not bar enforcement of a contractual attorney fees provision in this copyright-based litigation. Nonetheless, the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the majority of the plaintiff’s requested fees without explanation. Affirming in part, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on the defendant’s alleged spoliation of evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the mandate from a prior appeal to exclude damages from the issues at trial. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. RYAN V. EDITIONS LTD. WEST 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.