Harvest Aid, LLC v. Paul

── Harvest Aid, LLC v. Paul ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARVEST AID, LLC, a California limited No. 24-7375 liability company, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-04154-SSS-KS Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM* WAX WORKS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Defendant - Appellee, v. STEVEN PAUL, an individual; ECHO BRIDGE ACQUISITION CORP., LLC; SP RELEASING, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant-third-pty-plaintiffs - Appellants. HARVEST AID, LLC, No. 25-2589 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-04154-SSS-KS v. STEVEN PAUL; ECHO BRIDGE * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ACQUISITION CORP., LLC; SP RELEASING, LLC, Defendant-third-pty-plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WAX WORKS, INC., Third-pty-defendant. HARVEST AID, LLC, a California limited No. 25-2711 liability company, D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:21-cv-04154-SSS-KS v. WAX WORKS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Defendant, v. STEVEN PAUL, an individual; ECHO BRIDGE ACQUISITION CORP., LLC; SP RELEASING, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant-third-pty-plaintiffs - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 12, 2026 Pasadena, California 2 24-7375 Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Harvest Aid sued Steven Paul, SP Releasing, LLC, and Echo Bridge Acquisition Corp., LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and circumvention of copyright protection systems in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Harvest Aid and against Defendants on all counts. Following the entry of judgment, Harvest Aid filed a timely motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and Defendants timely moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied the motions for failure to comply with the pre-filing conference of counsel requirements under Central District of California Local Rule 7-3 and its Civil Standing Order, without reaching the merits of the motions. The district court subsequently granted Harvest Aid’s second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and amended the entry of judgment accordingly. These consolidated cases involve three separate appeals: (1) Defendants’ appeal of the order denying their motions for a new trial; (2) Defendants’ appeal of the order granting Harvest Aid’s second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) Harvest Aid’s conditional cross-appeal of the order denying the first motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand in the first appeal; affirm in part and reverse in part the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the second appeal; and dismiss the third appeal. 3 24-7375  1.