G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Clemons et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge John A. Mendez on 03/26/24 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 38 Motion for Attorney Fees. AWARDING Plaintiff $7,293.75 in attorneys' fees and $1,331.60 in costs, for a total sum of $8,625.35. (Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

EVERETT HUNTER, et al.,
Defendants.

16

No.

2:22-cv-1059-JAM-KJN

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
COSTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii)

17
Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”)

18
19

obtained default judgment in this action.

20

Order, ECF No. 36.

21

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section

22

605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

23

this action have not appeared, the motion is unopposed.

24

generally, Dkt.

25

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.1

26

///

27
28

1This

Default Judgment

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now seeks

Mot., ECF No. 38.

Since the defendants in
See

For the reasons set forth below, the Court

matter is determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1

1

I.

OPINION

2

A.

Factual Background

3

Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on November 8,

4

2022, against multiple defendants for the allegedly unlawful

5

broadcast of a sporting event in which Plaintiff possessed the

6

exclusive right to distribute.

7

ECF No. 17.

8

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, among other claims.

9

Id.

See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”),

The FAC asserts violations of the Federal

10

Defendants Everett Hunter and Port City Sports Bar and

11

Grill, LLC failed to file a responsive pleading to the FAC, see

12

Dkt., and the Clerk of Court entered default as to those

13

defendants on December 23, 2022.

14

No. 27.

15

later dismissed without prejudice.

16

Plaintiff then moved for default judgment.

17

Default Judgment, ECF No. 31.

18

recommended that default judgment be entered and that Plaintiff

19

be awarded damages in the sum of $6,900.00.

20

Recommendations, ECF No. 34.

21

Judge’s findings and recommendations in full and ordered

22

Plaintiff to file a motion for costs and fees within 14 days.

23

Default Judgment Order, ECF No. 36.

24

instant motion, seeking $12,818.40 in fees and $2,338.47 in

25

costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

26

///

27

///

28

///

Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF

The only remaining defendant, Tommy Barksdale, was
Minute Order, ECF No. 30.
Plf.’s Mot. for

The Magistrate Judge found and

Findings and

This Court adopted the Magistrate

2

Plaintiff timely filed the

Mot. at 7.

1

B.

Legal Standard

2

An aggrieved party that prevails under the Federal

3

Communications Act is entitled to recover “full costs,”

4

including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

5

§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

6

“with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by

7

wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of

8

satellite cable programming . . . .”

9

Because default judgment has been entered as to this claim, and

47 U.S.C.

A “person aggrieved” includes a party

Id. at § 605(d)(6).

10

based on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,

11

Plaintiff necessarily qualifies as an aggrieved party who

12

prevailed and may thus recover “full costs” under section 605.

13

“Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district

14

court must then determine what fees are reasonable.”

15

City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting

16

Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir.

17

2016)).

18

C.

19

Plaintiff seeks $12,818.40 in attorneys’ fees and $2,338.47

Analysis

20

in costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

21

7.

22
23

Roberts v.

1.

Mot. at 1,

Attorneys’ Fees

“[D]istrict courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the lodestar

24

method to determine whether a fee request is reasonable under

25

Section 605.”

26

1:20-CV-1736 JLT SAB, 2022 WL 348165 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022)

27

(collecting cases); see also Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085,

28

1099 (9th Cir. 2016).

G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No.

The lodestar is calculated by
3

1

“multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case

2

by a reasonable hourly rate.”

3

Court may also modify “the lodestar figure, upward or downward,

4

based on factors not subsumed in the lodestar figure.”

5
6

a.

Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099.

The

Id.

Reasonable Hourly Rates

The Court must determine a reasonable hourly rate

7

considering the experience, skill, and reputation of the

8

attorney requesting fees and should be guided by the prevailing

9

rate in the forum community for similar work performed by

10

comparable attorneys.

11

1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on denial of reh'g,

12

808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987).

13

current billable rate is $600.00 per hour and submits a

14

declaration in support thereof, but he acknowledges that $350.00

15

per hour has previously been found reasonable.

16

Declaration of Thomas P. Riley (“Riley Declaration”), ECF No.

17

38-1 at ¶ 6.

18

an hourly rate between $350.00 and $375.00 to be reasonable as

19

to Mr. Riley.

20

116CV00485DADJLT, 2019 WL 935387 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019)

21

($375.00); G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Barajas-Quijada, No.

22

1:19-CV-1259 AWI JLT, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2,

23

2020) (same); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barajas, No.

24

115CV01354DADJLT, 2017 WL 469343 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017)

25

($350.00); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (same).

26

Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d

Here, Mr. Riley asserts his

Mot. at 5;

Indeed, other courts in this District have found

See J & J Sports Prods. Inc. v. Cervantes, No.

Given Mr. Riley’s skill, experience, and the prevailing

27

rate for similar legal work in the Eastern District, the Court

28

finds an hourly rate of $375.00 to be reasonable and consistent
4

1
2

with other courts in this District.
Plaintiff also seeks to recover $350.00 for every hour

3

billed by an unidentified research attorney.

4

Decl. at ¶ 6.

5

research attorney, see Riley Decl. at ¶ 3, the Court joins the

6

other courts in this District that previously found an hourly

7

rate of $225.00 to be reasonable.

8

at *5; Barajas-Quijada, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2.

9

Mot. at 5; Riley

Given the minimal information provided about this

See Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165

In sum, the Court finds the hourly rates of $375.00 and

10

$225.00 are reasonable as to Mr. Riley and his research

11

attorney, respectively.

12
13

b.

Hours Reasonably Expended

The Court must also determine whether the hours expended

14

were reasonable.

15

reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting

16

detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been

17

expended.”

18

hours expended “where documentation of the hours is inadequate;

19

if the case was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; [or] if

20

the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise

21

unnecessary.”

22

also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, No. C 10-04171 SBA,

23

2013 WL 4428573, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).

24

hours expended do not appear excessive or unnecessary, and the

25

total time spent was reasonable for the work completed in this

26

action.

27

both counsel.

28

Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099.

Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1210.

“In determining

Courts may reduce the

Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34); see

Here, the

Therefore, the Court will not reduce the time billed by

However, the Court declines to award fees for the time
5

1

expended by Mr. Riley’s administrative assistant.

See Riley

2

Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7; Exh. 1 at 6-10.

Tasks that are clerical or

3

duplicative are not compensable.

E.g., Nadarajah v. Holder, 569

4

F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (clerical); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165

5

(collecting cases regarding duplicative billings).

6

tasks include, but are not limited to: creating indexes for a

7

binder; filing emails, memoranda, and other correspondence;

8

updating the case calendar with new dates; copying, scanning,

9

and faxing documents; and filing or serving documents.”

“[Clerical]

Moore

10

v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2016 WL 3648949, at *3

11

(E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) (citing Prison Legal News v.

12

Schwarzenegger, 561 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2008)).

13

Here, many of the administrative assistant’s entries are

14

duplicative of Mr. Riley’s entries.

15

Mot.

16

tasks thus preventing the Court from determining how much time

17

within each entry was spent on compensable tasks, if any.

18

Exh. 1 at 6 (2/10/22, “Preparation, Filing, and Service of Third

19

Demand letter to Chantille Marie Clemons”).

20

preparation may be a compensable task, the billable descriptions

21

here are ambiguous and do not sufficiently support that non-

22

clerical skills were required.

23

(1/15/2024, “Preparation of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Bill”).

24

See generally Exh. 1 to

Other entries are clerical or block-billed with clerical

E.g.,

Although document

See, e.g., Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9

Therefore, the Court declines to award the administrative

25

assistant’s fees given the clerical and duplicative nature of

26

the tasks billed.

27

c.

28

Lack of Contemporaneous Billing System

A contemporaneous billing system is not necessary to
6

1

recover attorneys’ fees, but it is preferred.

Fischer v. SJB-

2

P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

not utilize a contemporaneous billing system.

4

¶ 7.

5

and notes at some later time.

6

found the lack of contemporaneous billing to be less reliable

7

and “have reduced the fee award where the time requested for

8

certain tasks appeared to be unnecessary, excessive, or

9

unreasonable.”

Mr. Riley does
Riley Decl. at

Instead, the hours are reconstructed by reviewing the file
Id.

Courts in this District have

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albright, No. CIV.

10

2:11-2260 WBS, 2013 WL 4094403 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013)

11

(collecting cases); Cervantes, 2019 WL 935387 at *4.

12

however, the Court does not find the requested time to be

13

unnecessary, excessive, or unreasonable such that a reduction is

14

warranted despite the lack of a contemporaneous billing system.

15
16

d.

Here,

Lodestar Amount

After the rate and hour adjustments, Plaintiff is entitled

17

to recover 5.05 hours at $375.00 per hour for Mr. Riley and

18

24.00 hours at $225.00 per hour for the unidentified research

19

attorney, for a total sum of $7,293.75 in attorneys’ fees.

20
21

2.

Costs

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover “full costs” under 47

22

U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

Nevertheless, there is a limit as

23

to what costs are compensable, and sufficient documentation must

24

be provided to support that the costs were reasonable.

25

Plaintiff seeks $2,338.47 in costs, which consists of $402.00

26

for the Court’s filing fee, $929.60 for service of process fees,

27

$710.00 in investigative expenses, and $296.87 in courier

28

charges.

Here,

Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9; Exh. 2 to Mot.; Exh. 3 to Mot.
7

1

Filing and service of process fees are compensable, e.g.,

2

Velasquez, No. 1:20-CV-1736 JLT SAB, 2022 WL 348165 at *7, and

3

Plaintiff is entitled to recover those costs based on the record

4

and documents provided.

5

Mot. (service of process fees).

6

below, the Court declines to award Plaintiff investigative and

7

courier costs.

8

See Dkt. No. 1 (filing fee); Exh. 3 to
However, for the reasons stated

Purely investigative costs are generally not recoverable,

9

see Koppinger v. Cullen-Schiltz & Assocs., 513 F.2d 901 (8th

10

Cir. 1975), and many courts in this Circuit have refused to

11

award pre-litigation investigative costs under section

12

605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

13

Feb. 4, 2022) (collecting cases); but see J & J Sports Prods.,

14

Inc. v. Pagliaro, No. 1:12-CV-1507-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 7140605 at

15

*2 (granting investigative costs without expressly identifying

16

them in its order or discussing their propriety).

17

Court were to hold that purely investigative expenses are

18

compensable under section 605, the documentation provided here

19

is insufficient to support that the charge was reasonable.

20

G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Parker, 2021 WL 164998, at *9

21

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2021) (declining to “award investigator fees

22

when documented by an invoice containing nothing more than an

23

amount without even detailing the investigative services

24

provided or qualifications of the investigator.”); G & G Closed

25

Cir. Events, LLC v. LA Placita RM Rest. Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01089-

26

DAD-DB, 2023 WL 8933585 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2023).

27

opines that this cost was reasonable, Riley Declaration at ¶ 9,

28

but the only documentation Plaintiff submits is an invoice

E.g., Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (E.D. Cal.

8

Even if the

G &

Mr. Riley

1

generated not by the investigative company but by the Law

2

Offices of Thomas P. Riley.

3

Critically, however, the qualifications of the investigator and

4

details of the investigation are omitted.

5

Riley Decl. ¶ 9.

6

conclude whether this cost is reasonable, even assuming

7

investigative costs are compensable.

8

Inc. v. Barajas, No. 115CV01354DADJTL, 2016 WL 2930549 at *5

9

(E.D. Cal. May 19, 2016).

10

See Exh. 2 to Mot. at 12.

See generally Mot.;

Based on this information, the Court cannot

See J & J Sports Prods.,

The same is true for the courier charges Plaintiff seeks to

11

recover.

The only documentation Plaintiff provides is an

12

itemization of courier expenses generated by the Law Offices of

13

Thomas P. Riley; Plaintiff does not include receipts for the

14

courier expenses incurred.

15

the Court finds Plaintiff has not provided sufficient

16

documentation to support an award of courier costs.

17

Barajas, 2016 WL 2930549 at *3 (refusing to award courier

18

charges when no documentation was provided even though courier

19

fees are recoverable under § 605); G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC

20

v. Aguilar, No. 18CV465 JM (BGS), 2018 WL 6445883 (S.D. Cal.

21

Dec. 10, 2018) (same).

See Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9.

Therefore,

E.g.,

22

In sum, Plaintiff is entitled to $402.00 in filing fees and

23

$929.60 in service of process fees for total sum of $1,331.60 in

24

costs.

25

All other requests for costs are denied.
II.

ORDER

26

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

27

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s

28

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. section
9

1

605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

2

fees and $1,331.60 in costs, for a total sum of $8,625.35.

3
4

Plaintiff is awarded $7,293.75 in attorneys’

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2024

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10