J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Meza-Jimenez et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/4/2018.(DGC, nvo)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 No. CV-17-1320-PHX-DGC J & J Sports Productions, Inc., ORDER 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 Francisco J. Meza Jimenez, Nydia P. Meza, and Taqueria Cajeme, LLC, d/b/a Taqueria Cajeme, 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions has filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ 18 fees and costs. Doc. 22. No response has been filed. The Court will grant the motion in 19 part. 20 Plaintiff obtains licenses to distribute pay-per-view programming to bars and 21 restaurants. Plaintiff claims that on May 7, 2016, Defendants intercepted a pay-per-view 22 boxing match and displayed it to the public at Taqueria Cajeme, a Mexican restaurant and 23 bar operated by Defendants. Plaintiff brought this civil action seeking statutory damages 24 for violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable and Television 25 Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 et seq. 26 Doc. 1. 27 28 Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Docs. 10, 17. Plaintiff was awarded default judgment in the amount of $30,000.00. Docs. 19, 21. 1 Under the Communications Act, the Court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, 2 including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 3 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, a party 4 seeking to recover attorneys’ fees must file a motion that includes a discussion of the 5 eligibility and entitlement to fees and the reasonableness of the requested award. 6 LRCiv 54.2(c). The supporting memorandum should include a consultation statement, 7 the fee agreement, an itemized statement of fees, and an affidavit of moving counsel. 8 LRCiv 54.2(d). 9 With respect to costs, Local Rule 54.1 directs prevailing party to “include a 10 memorandum of the costs and necessary disbursements, so itemized that the nature of 11 each can be readily understood, and, where available, documentation of requested costs 12 in all categories must be attached.” LRCiv 54.1(a). 13 I. Attorneys’ Fees. 14 Plaintiff seeks a fee award in the amount of $4,460.00 for 19 billable hours. 15 Docs. 22 at 3, 22-4 at 10. The request includes $885.00 in fees for the work of an 16 administrative assistant. 17 engaged in substantive legal work under a lawyer’s supervision, most of the work is 18 secretarial in nature. Secretarial or clerical work is not properly included in an award of 19 attorneys’ fees. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Mosqueda, CV-12-00523-PHX-DGC, 20 2013 WL 5336848, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2013) (citing Schrum v. Burlington N. Santa 21 Fe Ry. Co., No. CIV 04-0619-RCB, 2008 WL 2278137, at *12 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2008)). 22 The Court is particularly reluctant to award fees for all of this work, as many of the 23 itemized time entries appear to be a lawyer’s review or duplication of the administrator’s 24 tasks. The Court has noted this same issue in ruling on Plaintiff’s motions for attorneys’ 25 fees in other cases. See Mosqueda, 2013 WL 5336848, at *3; J & J Sports Prods, Inc. v. 26 Macia, No. CV-13-00921-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 3747608, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2014). 27 The Court will reduce the requested fee award by the amount sought for time spent 28 by the administrative assistant on secretarial tasks. The Court, in its discretion, will Doc. 22-4 at 7-10. -2- Although this individual occasionally 1 award attorneys’ fees of $3,850.00.1 2 II. Costs. 3 A prevailing party is entitled to “the recovery of full costs” under the 4 Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in 5 the amount of $1,374.24 for filing fees, service of process fees, courier charges, and 6 investigative costs. Docs. 22 at 3, 22-4 at 10-11. 7 The statute has been interpreted as including investigative costs. See Kingvision 8 Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Autar, 426 F. Supp. 2d 59, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). Although the 9 Court has the power to direct the recovery of such costs, it is not required to do so. Id. 10 (citing Int’l Cablevision, Inc. v. Noel, 982 F. Supp. 904, 918 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)). Rather, 11 “[i]n order to recover investigative costs a plaintiff must make a showing similar to that 12 required to recover attorneys’ fees,” and the movant “must document (1) the amount of 13 time necessary for the investigation; (2) how much the investigators charged per hour; 14 and (3) why the investigators are qualified to demand the requested rate.” Id. (internal 15 citations and quotation marks omitted). 16 Plaintiff has submitted a $650 invoice from the investigator, but provides no 17 explanation or supporting documentation for the reasonableness of this charge. 18 Doc. 22-4 at 15. Plaintiff fails to describe the investigator’s qualifications or identify her 19 hourly rate. It is worth noting that the investigator spent only five minutes in Defendants’ 20 establishment on the night in question. Doc. 20-3 at 2. The Court will not award costs 21 for these investigative services. 22 23 Nor will the Court award costs for the $34.24 in courier charges. Doc. 22-4 at 10. Plaintiff provides no supporting documentation for these charges. 24 IT IS ORDERED: 25 1. Plaintiff’s motion for award of costs and attorneys’ fees (Doc. 22) is 26 27 28 1 Counsel for Plaintiff avows that he does not have a fee agreement with Plaintiff. Doc. 22-4 at 4. Counsel further states that a consultation statement is unavailable given that no Defendant has appeared in this action. Id. at 5. -3- 1 granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order. 2 2. Plaintiff is awarded $3,850.00 in attorneys’ fees. 3 3. Plaintiff is awarded $690.00 for costs. 4 Dated this 4th day of April, 2018. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?