96 - summary order - us court of appeals for the second circuit - effie films v gregory murphy

7/24/2019 96 - Summary Order - US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Effie Films v Gregory Murphy

1/4

14- 3367- cv; 15- 1573Ef f i e Fi l m, LLC v. Mur phy

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILEDON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,2007,IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OFAPPELLATEPROCEDURE 32.1AND THIS COURTS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN ADOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERALAPPENDIX OR ANELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER).APARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUSTSERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals1

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United2 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,3on the 16thday of October, two thousand fifteen.4

5PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,6

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,7Circuit Judges,8

GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,*9District Judge.10

11- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X12EFFIE FILM, LLC,13

Plaintiff-Appellee,1415

-v.- 14-3367-cv; 15-1573-cv1617

GREGORY MURPHY,18Defendant-Appellant.19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X2021

FOR APPELLANT: Gr egory Murphy, pro se, New22

York, N. Y.23

* J udge Geof f r ey W. Cr awf or d, of t he Uni t ed St at esDi st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Ver mont , si t t i ng bydesi gnat i on.

1

CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 11/09/2015

Case 14-3367, Document 116, 11/09/2015, 1637792, Page1 of 4

USDC SDNY

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOC #: _________________

DATE FILED: ______________

N.Y.S.D. Case #11-cv-0783(TPG)

11/09/2015

Case 1:11-cv-00783-TPG Document 96 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 4


2/4

1FOR APPELLEE: Andr ew C. Ni chol s and2

Chr i st opher E. Mi l l s, Wi nst on &3St r awn LLP, Washi ngt on, D. C. ,4Li nda T. Cober l y, Wi nst on &5

St r awn LLP, Chi cago, I L.67Appeal f r om an or der of t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct8

Cour t f or t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k (Gr i esa, J . ) .910

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED11AND DECREED t hat Appel l ee s mot i on t o di smi ss be DENIED and12t he or der of t he di st r i ct cour t awar di ng at t or ney s f ees be13REVERSED. The appeal f r om t he i mposi t i on of an appeal bond,14docket ed under 15- 1573, i s DISMISSED as moot .15

16

Gr egor y Mur phy, pr o se, appeal s f r om t he or der of t he17Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of18New Yor k ( Gr i esa, J . ) , awar di ng cost s and at t or ney s f ees i n19t he amount of $499, 068. 70 t o pl ai nt i f f Ef f i e Fi l m, LLC20( Ef f i e Fi l m) . We assume t he par t i es f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he21under l yi ng f act s, t he pr ocedur al hi st or y, and t he i ssues22pr esent ed f or r evi ew.23

24Thi s appeal ar i ses out of a copyr i ght di sput e bet ween25

Mur phy, t he aut hor of a st age pl ay and a scr eenpl ay ( bot h26t i t l ed The Countess) , and Ef f i e Fi l m, whi ch pr oduced t he27

f i l m Effie Gray based on t he scr eenpl ay Effie. The Countess28and Effie ar e bot h f i ct i onal i zed account s about t he mar r i age29of Ef f i e Gr ay t o ar t cri t i c J ohn Ruski n, whi ch l ed t o a30f amous Vi ct or i an scandal . Ef f i e Fi l m sued Mur phy f or a31decl ar at or y j udgment t hat Effie di d not i nf r i nge on The32Countess. I n i t s opi ni on on t he mer i t s, t he di st r i ct cour t33gr ant ed j udgment i n f avor of Ef f i e Fi l m on t he gr ound t hat34t he pr ot ect abl e el ement s of The Countess wer e not35subst ant i al l y si mi l ar t o Effie. Ef f i e Fi l m, LLC v. Mur phy36( Ef f i e I ) , 932 F. Supp. 2d 538, 560 ( S. D. N. Y. 2013) . 1 We37af f i r med. Ef f i e Fi l m, LLC v. Mur phy ( Ef f i e I I ) , 564 F.38

App x 631 ( 2d Ci r . 2014) ( summary or der ) .3940

1 The f i l m Effie Gray had not yet been rel eased att he t i me of t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on. The cour t hel dt hat t he f i l m woul d not be i nf r i ngi ng i f i t adher ed t o t henon- i nf r i ngi ng ver si on of t he scr eenpl ay Effie. Ef f i e I ,932 F. Supp. 2d at 560.

2

Case 14-3367, Document 116, 11/09/2015, 1637792, Page2 of 4Case 1:11-cv-00783-TPG Document 96 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 4


3/4

The di st r i ct cour t t hen awar ded cost s and at t or ney s1f ees t o Ef f i e Fi l m i n t he amount of $499, 068. 70. Under t he2Copyr i ght Act , a cour t i n i t s di scr et i on may al l ow t he3r ecover y of f ul l cost s and may al so awar d a reasonabl e4at t or ney s f ee t o t he pr evai l i ng par t y as par t of t he5

cost s. 17 U. S. C. 505. When determi ni ng whether t o6 awar d at t or neys f ees, di st r i ct cour t s may consi der such7f act or s as ( 1) t he f r i vol ousness of t he non- pr evai l i ng8par t y s cl ai ms or def enses; ( 2) t he par t y s mot i vat i on; ( 3)9whet her t he cl ai ms or def enses wer e obj ect i vel y10unr easonabl e; and ( 4) compensat i on and det er r ence. Br yant11v. Medi a Ri ght Pr ods. , I nc. , 603 F. 3d 135, 144 ( 2d Ci r .122010) . The t hi r d f act or obj ect i ve unr easonabl enessshoul d13be gi ven subst ant i al wei ght . I d. We r evi ew an awar d of14at t or ney s f ees under 505 f or abuse of di scr et i on but t he15f ees must be r easonabl e i n t er ms of t he ci r cumst ances of16

t he part i cul ar case. Mat t hew Bender & Co. v. W. Pub. Co. ,17 240 F. 3d 116, 121 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks18omi t t ed) .19

201. The di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat t he obj ect i ve21

unr easonabl eness st andar d was easi l y sat i sf i ed based on22our summar y af f i r mance i n Ef f i e I I , whi ch concl uded t hat23Mur phy s ar gument s wer e wi t hout mer i t . J . A. 15. The24di st r i ct cour t ci t ed no ot her f act or s t o suppor t t he awar d25of al most hal f a mi l l i on dol l ar s agai nst a l i t i gant , who was26( by t hat st age of t he l i t i gat i on) pr o se, ot her t han t o27

st at e that t he awar d was consi st ent wi t h t he goal s of t he28 Copyr i ght Act because i t wi l l hel p det er f ut ur e obj ect i vel y29unr easonabl e l awsui t s. I d.30

31As an i ni t i al mat t er , our summar y or der was not a32

summary af f i r mance. Summary af f i r mance i s a r arel y used33shor t - cut t hat i s avai l abl e onl y when an appeal i s t r ul y34f r i vol ous. Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 598 F. 3d 10, 13 ( 2d35Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The36di st i nct i on bet ween summar y af f i r mance and a summar y order37i s cr i t i cal , because whi l e the f or mer may be an adequat e38

basi s f or awar di ng at t or ney s f ees, t he l at t er , wi t hout39 more, i s not . Our summary order di d not concl ude t hat40Mur phy s cl ai ms wer e t r ul y f r i vol ous; r at her , we si mpl y41af f i r med El l i e I af t er det er mi ni ng t hat Mur phy s appel l at e42ar gument s wer e wi t hout mer i t . Because t he di st r i ct cour t43based i t s deci si on sol el y on i t s mi schar act er i zat i on of44El l i e I I as hol di ng Mur phy s argument s wer e obj ect i vel y45unr easonabl e, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s46di scret i on i n gr ant i ng at t or ney s f ees t o Ef f i e Fi l m. We47

3



4/4

di scer n no ot her basi s i n t hi s r ecor d f or an awar d of1at t or ney s f ees t o Ef f i e Fi l m under 17 U. S. C. 505.2

32. Ef f i e Fi l m al so moved t o di smi ss t hi s appeal due t o4

Mur phy s f ai l ur e t o post an appeal bond. That mot i on i s5

deni ed i n l i ght of our st r ong pr ef er ence f or r esol vi ng6 di sput es on t he mer i t s. See Enr on Oi l Cor p. v. Di akuhar a,710 F. 3d 90, 95 ( 2d Ci r . 1993) ; see al so Baker v. Ur ban8Out f i t t er s, I nc. , 249 F. App x 845, 846 ( 2d Ci r . 2007)9( summary or der ) ( deci di ng appeal on t he mer i t s wi t hout10r eachi ng f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h appeal bond) .11

12For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we hereby REVERSE t he or der13

of t he di st r i ct cour t awar di ng at t or ney s f ees, DENY14Appel l ee s mot i on t o di smi ss, and DISMISS t he appeal of t he15i mposi t i on of an appeal bond, docket ed under 15- 1573, as16

moot .1718FOR THE COURT:19CATHERI NE O HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK20

21

4


96 - summary order - us court of appeals for the second circuit - effie films v gregory murphy

Documents