Monday, March 08, 2010

Court rules Ms. Lindor may not move for attorneys fees

In UMG Recordings v. Lindor, in response to Ms. Lindor's request for (a) an order clarifying that the Court precludes her from making a motion for attorneys fees, or in the alternative (b) a pre-motion conference in connection with a planned motion for an order:

-determining the statute of limitations to have expired;
-determining her to be the prevailing party within the meaning of 17 USC 505; and
-awarding her costs, including reasonable attorneys fees,

the Court has issued an order which "restates that defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied"

March 8, 2010 order denying attorneys fees
February 25, 2010, letter of Ray Beckerman to District Judge Hon. David G. Trager



Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

7 comments:

Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

I just love how the penalties for being innocent are more than an order of magnitude harsher than the penalties for being guilty.

This issue is solely why I have 0 confidence in the US legal system.

T2 said...

I am sorry to hear of this decision, Ray.

derivative said...

Well, that sucks but obviously was not unexpected.

I hope, if you are going to appeal it, that you manage to do so in time -- it appears that the judge believes his earlier writing was clear...

Alter_Fritz said...

OK, Mr. Trager is the judge here...

... So I must assume he knows what he talks about...

... but what motion BY DEFENDANT(!) is he talking about after all?

I find it curious if your civil law system would allow judges lik e Trager of Levy to rule about stuff that was (as far as I remember about the case from an uninformed bystander point of view) not even on thier table/desk and that, as it seems to me, only because they seem to have lost the overview about the state of a case before them because of the "controversial behaviour" of the RIAA lawyers in the way they present the issues in their papers that they give then to those two judges.

--
A_F

Anonymous said...

I expect this ruling will be appealed.

I have a procedural question. Why is Defendant barred from /moving/ for attorneys fees? This is the second case brought against Defendant, so its dismissal is effectively with prejudice, yes? Has the judge recognized that? I would have expected the judge to allow the motion and simply reject it later...

XYZZY

Ray Beckerman said...

You are precisely correct, Alter_Fritz. Ms. Lindor has never made a motion for attorneys fees.

That's what they have appeals courts for.

Ray Beckerman said...

Dear derivative

Thank you for your advice.

Yes we will be appealing from it.

Our time to appeal has not even started running, as no judgment has yet been entered.