Hunt

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Hunt challenges the district coux-t’s denial of his motion for attorneys’ fees. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the ruling below.

*585 We review the district court’s denial of fees under the Copyright Act for an abuse of discretion. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 , 814-15 (9th Cir.2003). We review de novo whether the district court applied the proper legal standard to determine that fees should not be shifted. Sea Coast Foods, Inc. v. Lu-Mar Lobster & Shrimp, Inc., 260 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir.2001).

The Copyright Act provides that no award of attorneys’ fees “shall be made for any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 412 . In its order of July 31, 1997, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged infringement of Hunt’s architectural plans commenced before Hunt registered his copyright on March 15,1995. By February of 1995, the court noted, the plans had already been submitted to the city for review. Despite Hunt’s argument on appeal, the building’s construction did not constitute a separate infringing act for…