Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

Foster and RIAA argue over attorneys' fees

7 September 2007 6:58 by James "Dela" Delahunty | 5 comments

When Debbie Foster ultimately triumphed in a copyright infringement case brought against her by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), she was awarded attorneys' fees. After exhausting any other options, the RIAA gave Foster a check for $68,685.23 on August 30th, but Foster did not consider the case closed there.

She filed a motion to amend the attorneys' fees award over the amount paid and the method of payment. The RIAA did in fact pay in full up to the time that the fees were awarded but neglected to include fees incurred by Foster's attorney pertaining to a hearing on July 5th and didn't include the interest that had accrued since the date of the award.

Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, Foster's attorney, was displeased with the method of payment by check also. By providing a written check made out to Debbie Foster, bank policy of placing a hold on checks would deny immediate access to the funds. Usually funds would be electronically transfered to the accounts of those in line for payments.

The RIAA countered by filing a motion to deem the judgment satisfied, believing since it paid up in full, the case is closed. Speaking to Ars Technica, an RIAA spokesperson said that Foster's filing mistakes the facts and misconstrues the judgment in this case.

"As a professional courtesy, we were willing to pay the fees to counsel's trust account via wire transfer. When we asked defendant's counsel to confirm that doing so would be in satisfaction of the judgment�which it clearly is�she refused and insisted we pay her money above the amount set forth in the judgment," the RIAA spokeswoman told Ars. "Because counsel met our professional courtesy with a lack of cooperation and an unreasonable insistence that we pay her sums beyond what were ordered, we chose to avoid any dispute and made payment in strict compliance with the Court's judgment."

Judge Lee R. West earlier today denied Foster's motion to amend the judgment and pointed out that it's not the fault of the plaintiffs that the bank has a check holding policy and that there is no authority banning the payment by check. He instructed the RIAA to calculate post-judgment interest and cut Foster another check before September 13th and he then will rule on the trade group's motion to deem the attorneys' fees judgment satisfied.

Source:
Ars Technica

Permalink to this article

Woman to pay full record label damages herself (5 October 2007)

First U.S. file sharing trial kicks off (3 October 2007)

Judge demands evidence from RIAA (14 September 2007)

RIAA ordered to pay attorney fees (17 July 2007)

RIAA ordered to turn over attorney billing records to Oklahoma woman (17 March 2007)

« Previous news article
Apple DRM attacked as anti-comptetitive in Florida lawsuit

Next news article »
European Commission, Apple and record labels to meet over antitrust charges

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
BludRayne (Junior Member) 7 September 2007 9:09
Yeah, kick em in the nuts again. I like happy endings. [ + quote]
DVDdoug (Junior Member) 7 September 2007 10:20
*Quote:* He instructed the RIAA to calculate post-judgment interest and cut Foster another check before September 13th and he then will rule on the trade group's motion to deem the attorneys' fees judgment satisfied. Right on! *Quote:* ...displeased with the method of payment by check... placing a hold on checks would deny immediate access to the funds. Now, that's a silly thing to whine about. Besides, she can make a Xerox copy and frame it! Wouldn't it be cool to have a framed $68K check from the RIAA hanging on the wall (even though the money is actually going to the lawyer) ? [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7 September 2007 10:26
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 7 September 2007 14:39
*Quote:* *Quote:* He instructed the RIAA to calculate post-judgment interest and cut Foster another check before September 13th and he then will rule on the trade group's motion to deem the attorneys' fees judgment satisfied. Right on! *Quote:* ...displeased with the method of payment by check... placing a hold on checks would deny immediate access to the funds. Now, that's a silly thing to whine about. Besides, she can make a Xerox copy and frame it! Wouldn't it be cool to have a framed $68K check from the RIAA hanging on the wall (even though the money is actually going to the lawyer) ? So she gets nothing for time lost and stress? WTF.... [ + quote]
Steve83 (Member) 10 September 2007 21:03
The issue at hand is attorney's fees. The check goes to her, but it's to pay her attorneys - no she won't be keeping any of THAT money. But I hope she spends every EXTRA dime she ever finds harassing RIAA for the rest of her life, or theirs whichever ends first. [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 11 September 2007 1:20
she should have taken it and finished it and made extra money through publicity. [ + quote]