Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in sanctioning defendant’s counsel $500 under Rule 11 and granting plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees sustained in responding to defendant’s motion for fees as “prevailing party” in Copyright Act action, under circumstances where plaintiff had previously settled case with defendant for $7,000, and where plaintiff had dismissed case with prejudice after defendant had paid plaintiff settlement figure. Dist. Ct. could properly view defendant’s motion for attorney fees as frivolous, even though defendant had argued that it was prevailing party because plaintiff had dismissed case with prejudice after plaintiff had filed answer, since defendant’s position was wholly unsupported by case law. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly impose $500 sanction under Rule 11 because defendant was misleading in its motion for fees, since it failed to note in motion that case had been settled and that it had paid plaintiff pursuant to said settlement. Also, Dist. Ct. properly granted plaintiff’s motion for fees under 28 USC section 1927, where defendant’s motion for fees as prevailing party was made in “objective bad faith,” since reasonably careful attorney would have known that said request was legally unsound.