Attorney Fees OK in Copyright Declaratory Relief Actions: 9th Circuit

In an article, by Dave Simpson on May 13, 2020 published by Law360, it was reported that the 9th circuit issued its opinion on the final pending matter in the Doc’s Dream, LLC. v Dolores Press, Inc. appellate case.

If you do not remember, let me summarize the matters before the appellate court:
Dolores Press, Inc. and Melissa Scott sued Patrick Robinson, Bobby Jones, Truth Seekers, Inc., Doc’s Dream, LLC. and does. The district court dismissed Dolores Press’ cases, 4 in total.

Meanwhile, Doc’s Dream, et al, counter-sued filing a declaratory action that Dr. Gene Scott had abandoned his copyrights in his works.

Doc’s Dream and Dolores Press filed competing Motions for Summary Judgment. Dolores Press was victorious in the district court with Doc’s Dream motion being dismissed as moot.

Dolores Press and Melissa Scott appealed the dismissals of their complaints and asked the 9th circuit to reverse the dismissals and remand them back to the district court for trial. Doc’s Dream appealed the district court’s decision and asked the 9th circuit to reverse the district courts order and declare the works in the public domain or in the absence of this ruling to remand the case back to the district court for trial.

The appellate court did no such thing. The 9th circuit affirmed the district courts ruling on the declaratory action and reversed the dismissals and remanded the cases back to the district court for trial.

This left one final matter for the 9th circuit to decide. After the district court granted Dolores Press’ motion for summary judgment, Dolores Press filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court judge, Manuel Real, denied the motion citing that a declaratory action did not require construction of the copyright act. The 9th circuit had a different opinion and vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded the question of attorney fees for its consideration.

This now places Patrick Robinson, Bobby Jones, Doc’s Dream, LLC., and Truth Seekers, Inc. in a very precarious position. Patrick has been on YouTube and told the viewing audience that he is in debt to his attorneys, six figures deep. This is crushing debt. It’s one thing if an attorney advises their client to proceed on a matter, when the attorney is willing to work pro-bono or on contingency. It’s another matter entirely, if the same attorney will advise their client to proceed in a matter that could potentially place them into an impossible amount of debt, possibly millions of dollars.

As it stands now, Patrick is six figures in debt to his attorney. Dolores Press is seeking nearly one-third of a million dollars in attorney fees. There are still the pending cases against Robinson et al. and the attorney fees that could arise out of those cases. Robinson’s attorney’s may be in some hot water if they proceed and they know that Robinson has no ability to pay. That could be a serious ethics violation. I would be surprised if Carlos and Linda do not attempt to talk Robinson, et al. into seeking a settlement. It’s at the phase now where serious consequences will be levied against an individual who plays games with the Court by bringing frivolous suits and has no ability to pay the costs.

But in reality, it seems likely that Robinson would proceed regardless, as he and his accomplices do not believe that there is a chance that they will lose, even with each loss being levied against them they are committed to continue. Some of the accomplices even believe these loses are victories and they convince other supporters that things are actually going well in the pursuit for “freeing Dr. Gene Scott’s teachings.” I cannot understand beyond the possibility that they are purposefully deceiving their followers to continue receiving support. But again, this opens a Pandora's box of trouble for Robinson, et al. and the legal team. But that’s a story for another day.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Patrick Robinson Going to Free Up Dr. Gene Scott's Copyrights?

Will an effective defense by Patrick Robinson in a copyright infringement case “free up the copyrights” of Dr. Gene Scott’s works? Read on to find out the answer. I’ve been watching this battle play out with concern, as should anyone with an interest in copyright law, whether they be a small-time production or even Walt Disney Company. The claims being made, and defenses raised in this complicated issue of copyright infringement and claims of copyright abandonment could have a wide range of effects on copyright law. But are any of them favorable to Patrick Robinson’s group? This case has gone up and down the proverbial field of play, from the initial copyright infringement cases being dismissed to the abandonment theory being defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. You may be asking, what is a motion for summary judgment, let alone a cross-motion? It’s not that difficult to understand and I’ll walk you through it if you’ll read on. On one side of the playi
Read more

Patrick Robinson Gives an Update in His FUMS #41

In his FUMS #41 video Patrick Robinson gives another victory update. But is this an accurate report? It is correct that the court did rule on the motion for consolidation. This was a motion brought by Dolores/Scott and opposed by Robinson. Therefore, I cannot comprehend Robinson’s update. In the video, Robinson says a few things that are inaccurate: 1) The cases are being consolidated under his first case. 2) Robinson acts like this consolidation is a victory for his group. 3) The undisputed fact that “It is undisputed that Dr. Gene Scott permitted downloads and encouraged the sharing and distribution of his teachings.” The first point is false. The cases are being assigned under Dolores Press’ first filed case, as evidenced by the court’s order Granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Consolidation, document 164 filed on 08/13/2019 page 4 of 4, wherein the Judge ordered the cases be consolidated under: Dolores Press Inc. v Patrick Robinson, et al. 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA. Furthe
Read more

Did Anthony Todd Testify Against Himself?

Is it possible to testify against yourself in a trial in which you did not appear? Anthony Todd may find out soon enough. On Friday, September 27, 2019 Melissa Scott’s attorneys filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the denied injunction against Todd. In Scott’s proposed judgment it was requested that Todd be enjoined from further infringement, and among other things, for Todd to preserve every file of Dr. Scott’s works. Judge Klausner denied the injunction reasoning that Scott had not proven that Todd was likely to continue to infringe. He further denied the preservation of all files because that was not what the complaint requested. In Friday’s moving papers, Scott’s attorneys request the Judge reconsider his previous orders and issue the injunction. The documents contain screenshots of Posts by Todd wherein he is conversing with other people online in google groups and Facebook. In these posts Todd promises Scott that he will not stop sharing the files
Read more