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
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
