Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Diamond Time, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the “district court certainly had a basis to infer that the litigation was undertaken and prosecuted” with the improper motivation of multiplying fees and encouraging nuisance settlement
• noting that fraudulent concealment requires a showing that the defendants took “active steps,” such as fraudulent statements or misrepresentations, or “hiding evidence or promising not to plead the statute of limitations”
• upholding award based on district court’s conclusion that “litigation was undertaken and prosecuted in a fashion that would multiply the fees and encourage nuisance settlement”
• finding that defendant was not equitably estopped from relying on the limitations period as a bar to the plaintiffs’ claims despite plaintiffs’ contention that they “were lulled into delaying suit by the assurances” from representatives of the defendant
• approving of district court’s application of lodestar method to attorneys’ fees award in copyright case
• affirming the district court’s award of attorney fees because it was, among other things, “in the interest of justice and in furtherance of the objectives of the Copyright Act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).