Kifle v. Youtube LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ELIAS KIFLE, Case No. 21-cv-01752-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

11 YOUTUBE LLC, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Defendant YouTube, Inc. moves for attorneys’ fees for half of its costs defending 14 against pro se Plaintiff Elias Kifle’s TRO motions. Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees (dkt. 90); see 15 TRO Mot. (dkt. 11); Amend. TRO Mot. (dkt. 31). 16 In a copyright action, a court has discretion to “award a reasonable attorney’s fee to 17 the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505; see Historical Research v. 18 Cabral, 80 F.3d 377, 378-79 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts may award fees if appropriate “to 19 promote the Copyright Act’s objectives”). The Court considers: “(1) the degree of success 20 obtained; (2) frivolousness; (3) motivation; (4) the objective unreasonableness of the 21 losing party’s factual and legal arguments; and (5) the need, in particular circumstances, to 22 advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Love v. Associated 23 Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 614-15 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 The Court DENIES YouTube’s motion. Although Kifle’s copyright claim was 25 unsuccessful, it was not frivolous, he did not bring it with malicious intentions, and the 26 circumstances here do not merit fees on compensation or deterrence grounds. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: June 27, 2022 Zz E ~~ CHARLES R. BREYER 2 United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

¢ 15

16 17 F 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28