Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Erkan

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 54 Motion for Attorney Fees (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2010)

Download PDF
Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Erkan Doc. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v. ZYNGA GAME NETWORK INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, ) Case No. 09-3264 SC ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ) ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NADIR ERKAN, an individual, and YUSUF DINCER, an individual, Defendants. Plaintiff Zynga Game Network Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendants Nadir Erkan and Yusuf Dincer ("Defendants"), alleging three causes of action under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1), 1125(a), 1030, and seven causes of action under California state law. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Defendants did not file an answer or otherwise respond to this Complaint, and on July 1, 2010, this Court entered a Default Judgment against Defendants. ECF No. 46 ("Default J. Order"). Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, in which Plaintiff seeks $26,131 in attorneys' fees and $8,189.63 in costs. ECF No. 54 ("Second Mot."). Plaintiff filed its First Motion for Attorneys' Fees on July 14, 2010. ECF No. 49 ("First Mot."). The Court denied this motion, citing Plaintiff's failure to support the claimed fees and costs with evidence. ECF No. 53 ("Aug. 31, 2010 Order"). The Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California Court wrote that while Plaintiff had adequately supported the reasonableness of the attorneys' billing rates, Plaintiff had failed to adequately document the number of hours worked by failing to attach detailed billing records. Id. at 3. The Court wrote that "Plaintiff's documentation of costs incurred is similarly inadequate." Id. at 4. The Court directed Plaintiff to re-file its motion within thirty days with "documentation sufficient for the Court to determine if the fees and costs claimed are reasonable and legitimate," such as "detailed attorney billing records; a table of costs, . . . and/or unredacted documentation of costs for in camera review." Id. at 4-5. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court In support of its Second Motion, Plaintiff has provided the Court with detailed attorney records for in camera review. Plaintiff has also attached a supplementary declaration of Christopher Varas ("Varas"), counsel for Plaintiff, in which Varas attempts to explain why the attorney hours claimed were necessary and not duplicative or excessive. See Varas Decl.1 In particular, Varas cites the time and expense of identifying the Defendants in this action, given their "extensive efforts to conceal their identities and locations, including by providing false and contradictory name and contact information to at least six different third parties, including financial institutions such as PayPal and Chevy Chase Bank." Id. 8. This required Plaintiff to file motions for leave to subpoena third parties and to hire a private investigator. Id. 8-9. In addition, Plaintiff has provided the Court with an itemized list explaining each charge in its Bill of Costs. 1 ECF No. 56 at 18. ECF No. 54. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California The Court has reviewed this supplemental documentation, and finds that Plaintiff has adequately documented the number of attorney hours worked, the various attorney billing rates, and the costs incurred by Plaintiff. In light of this evidence, it finds the amount sought in attorneys' fees and costs to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Defendants Nadir Erkan and Yusef Dincer are ordered to pay Zynga Game Network., Inc. $26,131 in attorneys' fees and $8,189.63 in costs. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 15, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 3

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?