Makes case for attorney fees — TRX.com owner

Following judge dismisses case, domain owner asks for attorney fees.

Lawyers for the owner of trx.com today made their case (pdf) for why the judge ought to award attorney fees.

I’ve rehashed this case many times, counting why the judge dismissed the case. You can catch up here.

In its motion for fees, trx.com’s attorneys argue:

• The UDRP that kicked off this whole mess was “fraudulent” since the Complainant didn’t own the IP in question. This is confirmed at this point. The lawyer who filed the UDRP (and is representing the plaintiff in this case), Alain Villeneuve, has provided his justification for why he didn’t realize that the Complainant no longer owned the IP. In the motion for fees, trx.com’s lawyers argue that the justification was untrue or misleading.
• The plaintiff undertook forum shopping. Even though the domain owner filed a lawsuit stemming from the UDRP in Arizona, the plaintiff filed an in rem case against the domain in Virginia. (The court moved the Virginia case to Arizona.)
• The plaintiff’s attorney ignored the court’s demand that he explain who owned the IP and why the UDRP Complainant and the plaintiff in this case both claimed ownership.
• “…in violation of litigation ethics,” the plaintiff’s attorney sent an ex parte communication to the judge.

There’s another wrinkle in the case. Shortly following lawyers for both parties agreed to an extension of time for the domain owner to file a motion for fees, the plaintiff’s lawyer filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

It doesn’t appear that the appeal has been filed, and I’m very curious what the plaintiff will argue in an appeal. While I’m not sure if it’s the case here, I’ve sometimes seen parties file an appeal as a negotiating tactic over fees since an appeal will cost even more to handle.

It’s worth noting that the amount in question isn’t substantial for a lawsuit—regarding $40,000. I wonder if Villeneuve will push forward given what doing so might reveal.