Estate of Melvin Noble, Jr. v. Ray Gene Bollin, Jr. d/b/a Absolut Production Recording Studios

Estate of Noble v. Bollin · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · November 21, 2025 · No. 4:23-cv-716

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas addresses the Estate of Melvin Noble, Jr.’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses after a jury verdict in the Estate’s favor on its claims and on the defendant’s counterclaims. The Court holds that the Estate is entitled to recover fees under applicable Texas and federal copyright and DMCA provisions, and analyzes the requested fees under the lodestar method and relevant fee-award factors. The excerpt indicates that the motion was granted in part, but does not include the complete disposition or final fee amount.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff was entitled to recover attorneys' fees for prosecuting its successful breach-of-contract and Texas Property Code unauthorized-use claims and for prosecuting or defending the related state-law claims and counterclaims where the legal services were sufficiently intertwined.
  2. Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party on its Copyright Act and DMCA claims.
  3. The requested $778,051.94 in attorneys' fees was reasonable and recoverable.
  4. Plaintiff was entitled to conditional attorneys' fees for defending post-judgment motions and a possible appeal.
  5. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the additional $4,032.56 in remaining expenses.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to recover attorneys' fees for prosecuting its successful state-law claims and defending against Defendant's state-law counterclaims.
  2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to discretionary attorneys' fees and costs under the Copyright Act, DMCA, and declaratory-judgment theory after prevailing on its federal claims.
  3. Whether the requested $778,051.94 in attorneys' fees was reasonable under the lodestar method and Johnson factors.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to conditional post-judgment and appellate attorneys' fees.
  5. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to recover $4,032.56 in remaining expenses not included in its bill of costs.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (31)

  • Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 502 (5th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n.11 (1984)(followed)
  • Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435-36 (1983)(followed)
  • Jason D.W. v. Houston Independent School District, 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Heidtman v. County of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038, 1043 (5th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974)(followed)
  • Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534-35 & n.19 (1994)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…