J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Margaillan et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. It is Ordered Plaintiff & J Sports is awarded $825.00 in costs and $1,485.00 in attorneys' fees. It if further Ordered the Clerk of Court shall enter an amended judgment in this case. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 1/14/2014.(MFR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
LUIS HECTOR MARGAILLAN, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. CIV 13-312-TUC-CKJ
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees
(Doc. 20).

16
17
18

Procedural Background
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc., (“J & J Sports”) filed a Complaint in this

19

Court on May 4, 2013.

J & J Sports alleged Defendants Luis Hector Margaillan

20

(“Margaillan”) and Lamco Enterprises, LLC (“Lamco”) violated 47 U.S.C. § 605 by their

21

unauthorized publication or use of communications (i.e., the transmission of the Floyd

22

Mayweather, Jr. v. Miguel Cotto, WBA Super World Light Middleweight Championship

23

Fight Program (“the Program”)) for which J & J Sports had the distributing rights. J & J

24

Sports also alleged Margaillan and Lamco violated 47 U.S.C. § 553 by their unauthorized

25

interceptions, reception, publication, divulgence, display, and/or exhibition of the Program.

26

The Clerk of Court entered default on September 11, 2013 (Docs. 11 and 13). On

27

December 18, 2013, this Court granted J & J Sports’ Motion for Default Judgment; Default

28

Judgment was entered.

1
2

J & J Sports requests an award of costs and attorneys’ fees based on the entry of
default judgment (Doc. 20).

3
4

Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 20)

5

J & J Sports requests an award of costs and attorneys’ fees based on the entry of

6

default judgment. J & J Sports Court's entry of default judgment, claiming it is the prevailing

7

party for purposes of such an award. (ECF No. 15.)

8

Generally, prevailing parties do not recover attorneys’ fees unless there is some

9

statutory or other exception to the American rule. Middle Mountain Land and Produce Inc.

10

v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Alyeska Pipeline

11

Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 257-59 (1975). 47 U.S.C. § 605 provides an

12

exception to the American rule.

13

Under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the Court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, including

14

awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 47 U.S.C. §

15

605(e)(3)(B)(iii). A “person aggrieved” includes “any person with proprietary rights in the

16

intercepted communication by wire or radio[,]” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6), or whose rights to a

17

communications service have been violated by unauthorized interception or receipt of the

18

service, 47 U.S.C. § 553(a). See also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Rezdndiz, No. 08 C 4121,

19

2008 WL 5211288, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 9, 2008) (holding that, under 47 U.S.C. § 553, “it is

20

clearly possible for non-cable operators to be ‘aggrieved’ as a result of unauthorized

21

interception”).

22

“Courts consistently confirm that ‘a party in whose favor judgment is rendered is

23

generally the prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs under Rule 54(d).’” San Diego

24

Police Officers' Ass'n v. San Diego City Employee's Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 741 (9th Cir.

25

2009). A plaintiff, therefore, who obtains a default judgment may be considered a prevailing

26

party for purposes of awarding fees and costs under § 605. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

27

Miranda, No. C 09–1037 SI, 2009 WL 3837273 (N.D.Cal. Nov.16, 2009).

28

J & J Sports has prevailed on its claim for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 by obtaining
-2-

1

a default judgment. J & J Sports is, therefore, entitled to an award of its costs and an award

2

of reasonable attorneys’ fees. J & J Sports seeks $1,500.00 in costs – however, the Bill of

3

Costs submitted by J & J Sports states the costs as $1,450.00.

4
5

J & J Sports’ costs include the filing fee ($400.00), and service-of-process charges
($425.00). The Court finds these costs are allowable by law and necessarily incurred.

6

J & J Sports also lists investigative expenses in the amount of $625.00. J & J Sports

7

seeks this cost pursuant to LRCiv 54.1. The Local Rule lists the items that may be taxed,

8

including “[o]ther items . . . with prior Court approval.” J & J Sports does not assert it

9

“obtained prior court approval to tax its investigator fees or expenses.” J & J Sports

10

Productions, Inc. v. Mosqueda, No. CV–12–00523–PHX–DGC, 2013 WL 5336848 *2

11

(D.Ariz. Sept. 24, 2013). The Court finds this item is not taxable under LRCiv 54.1.

12

Therefore, the Court finds an award of $825.00 for costs is appropriate.

13

J & J Sports also seek an award of $1,935.00 for attorneys’ fees. LRCiv 54.2 sets

14

forth factors that are to be discussed, as appropriate, that “bear[] on the reasonableness of the

15

requested attorneys' fee award[.]” The Court has considered the factors as discussed by

16

counsel, including the time and labor of counsel and his associates. The Motion includes

17

preparation of the Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees in the request.

18

However, “[i]f the moving party claims entitlement to fees for preparing the motion and

19

memorandum for award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses, such party also

20

must cite the applicable legal authority supporting such specific request.” LRCiv 54.2(c)(2);

21

see also Moshir v. Automobili Lamborghini America LLC, 927 F.Supp.2d 789, 804 (D.Ariz.

22

2013). No authority having been provided for an award for the preparation of the pending

23

motion, the Court will reduce the requested award by $450.00 (2.75 hours), the amount

24

requested for the preparation of the pending motion. The remaining number of hours

25

expended in this case as set forth in the motion is reasonable. See Doc. 20. Additionally, in

26

light of counsel’s experience and specialized knowledge, the Court finds the charged hourly

27

rates, as set forth in the motion, are reasonable. Id.; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

28

(1983). The Court finds an award of $1,425.00 for attorneys’ fees is appropriate.
-3-

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

2

1.

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 20) is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2.

Plaintiff J & J Sports is awarded $825.00 in costs and $1,485.00 in attorneys’

6

3.

The Clerk of Court shall enter an amended judgment in this case.

7

4.

The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to:

4
5

8
9
10
11
12

fees.

Luis Hector Margailan
1012 N. G Avenue, Suite 100
Douglas AZ 85607
Lamco Enterprises, LLC
1012 N. G Avenue, Suite 100
Douglas, AZ 85607
DATED this 14th day of January, 2014.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-