S.Ct. 1023 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court cautioned, however, that such factors may be used only “so long as [they] are faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act.” Id. Subsequent to Fogerty, several other circuits have accorded the objective reasonableness factor substantial weight in determinations whether to award attorneys’ fees. See Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 140 F.3d 70, 74 (1st Cir.1998) (affirming denial of fees because copyright holder’s “claims were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable”); Harris Custom Builders Inc. v. Hoffmeyer, 140 F.3d 728, 730-31 (7th Cir.1998) (vacating award of fees because, inter alia, losing party’s claims were objectively reasonable); Budget Cinema, Inc. v. Watertower Assocs., 81 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award attorneys fees based on the objective unreasonableness of plaintiffs complaint holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to include in its attorneys fees award the depositionrelated travel expenses incurred by prevailing plaintiffs counsel in an adea case holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint