Results ByIQ, LLC v. Fanning et al
Filing
154
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 134 Motion for Attorney Fees.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
10
RESULTS BYIQ LLC,
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
14
NETCAPITAL.COM LLC, NETWIRE
INC., NETMOVIES INC., and DOES
1-20,
Defendants.
15
16
) Case No. C 11-0550 SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES
) AND COSTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17
18
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Results ByIQ LLC's
21
("Plaintiff") motion for attorney fees and costs.
22
("Mot.").
23
Netmovies LLC ("Defendants") oppose the motion.
24
("Opp'n").
25
appropriate for decision without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
26
For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's
27
motion and AWARDS Plaintiff fees of $207,712.50 and additional
28
costs of $1,037.80.
ECF No. 134
Defendants Netcapital.com LLC, Netwire Inc., and
ECF No. 144
The motion is fully briefed, ECF No. 149 ("Reply"), and
1 II.
DISCUSSION
2
Plaintiff's counsel took over this case four months prior to
3
trial.
At trial, Plaintiff established that it was the successor-
4
in-interest to a predecessor company, ByIQ LLC, and that ByIQ LLC
5
had assigned to Plaintiff its rights under a Consulting Agreement
6
with Defendants.
7
("Verdict Form"), 2 ("Consulting Agreement").
8
Agreement provides in relevant part: "In any action or proceeding
9
to enforce rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party will
See ECF No. 139 ("Battista Decl.") Exs. 1
The Consulting
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
be entitled to recover costs and attorney fees."
11
Defendants for false promise and breach of contract, and the jury
12
found that Plaintiff prevailed on both claims.
13
Plaintiff $167,050 in compensatory damages for its false promise
14
claim, and $334,100 in punitive damages based on that claim.
15
Defendants had counterclaimed for a breach of contract, but the
16
jury found against them.
17
18
Plaintiff sued
The jury awarded
Plaintiff's counsel relies on California Civil Code section
1717(a) as their basis for fees:
19
In any action on a contract, where the
contract
specifically
provides
that
attorney's
fees
and
costs,
which
are
incurred to enforce that contract, shall be
awarded either to one of the parties or to
the prevailing party, then the party who is
determined to be the party prevailing on the
contract, whether he or she is the party
specified in the contract or not, shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in
addition to other costs.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Actions "on a contract" are not just breach of contract
27
actions.
"On a contract" extends to any action involving a
28
contract under which one of the parties could recover fees after
2
1
prevailing in a lawsuit.
See In re Tobacco Cases I, 193 Cal. App.
2
4th 1591, 1601 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
Defendants have two main arguments why Plaintiff is not
3
4
entitled to fees.
First, Defendants claim that Plaintiff did not
5
prevail in an action "on a contract" because the jury found for
6
Plaintiff, and awarded damages, on a fraudulent inducement claim --
7
a claim that sounds in tort.
8
the Consulting Agreement is just a backdrop to the case.
9
4.
Opp'n at 3.
According to Defendants,
Id. at 3-
Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
fees based on its breach of contract claim, because the jury did
11
not award Plaintiff damages on its contract claim.
12
Defendants state that since Plaintiff technically won nothing on
13
its contract claim, it cannot be the "prevailing party" on a
14
contract.
Id. at 4-5.
Id. at 4-6.
15
Alternatively, Defendants claim that Plaintiff's fees should
16
be reduced significantly because they are not apportioned and are
17
unreasonable.
18
that Plaintiff was supposed to apportion the fees it requests
19
between the fraud claim, on which the jury awarded it damages, and
20
the contract claim, on which the jury did not award damages.
21
at 7-8.
22
able to obtain fees directly related to their work on the fraud
23
claim.
24
the fees, Defendants state that Plaintiff's fee requests and
25
affidavits make it impossible for the Court to determine whether
26
Plaintiff's fee requests are reasonable.
27
event, Defendants argue that Plaintiff expended too much time on a
28
"relatively simple" case, that one attorney's fees were incurred
Id. at 7.
As to apportionment, Defendants claim
Id.
Defendants therefore state that Plaintiff should only be
Id. at 8.
Finally, with respect to the unreasonableness of
3
Id. at 8-9.
In any
1
before the action was filed (and are therefore not fees related to
2
an action on a contract), and that Plaintiff's travel time was
3
excessive.
Opp'n at 9-10.
First, under California law, "[i]f a cause of action is 'on a
4
5
contract,' and the contract provides that the prevailing party
6
shall recover attorney fees incurred to enforce the contract, then
7
attorney fees must be awarded on the contract claim in accordance
8
with Civil Code section 1717."
9
739, 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Exxess Electronixx v. Heger
Gil v. Mansano, 121 Cal. App. 4th
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Realty Corp., 64 Cal. App. 4th 698, 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)).
"A
11
broadly phrased contractual attorney fee provision may support an
12
award to the prevailing party in a tort action.
13
validly agree that the prevailing party will be awarded attorney
14
fees incurred in any litigation between themselves, whether such
15
litigation sounds in tort or in contract."
16
marks and citations omitted).
[P]arties may
Id. at 743 (quotation
The Court finds that this was an action "on a contract," given
17
18
the broad phrasing of the Consulting Agreement.
The Consulting
19
Agreement undisputedly contained a fee provision related to actions
20
undertaken to enforce rights under the contract.
21
Defendants to pay Plaintiff for the work they hired it to do.
22
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff, so it sued them to get its money
23
back, and, moreover, the jury found that Defendants had entered the
24
Consulting Agreement with Plaintiff without ever intending to pay
25
it.
26
claims.
27
and to hold that Plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to fees simply
28
because the jury awarded damages on a tort claim -- even though it
It also required
Plaintiff accordingly prevailed on both its contract and tort
The two theories are essentially intertwined in this case,
4
1
found that Plaintiff prevailed on both a contract and a tort claim
2
-- would be needless formalism.
3
Alperson, 25 Cal. 3d 124, 129-30 (Cal. 1979) ("Attorney's fees need
4
not be apportioned when incurred for representation on an issue
5
common to both a cause of action in which fees are proper and one
6
in which they are not allowed.").
7
be paid for the work they did, and they need not apportion their
8
fees given the near-identity of the facts supporting both causes of
9
action on which Plaintiff prevailed.
United States District Court
Plaintiff's attorneys deserve to
Id.
Finally, the Court has carefully reviewed all of Plaintiff's
10
For the Northern District of California
Cf. Reynolds Metals Co. v.
11
moving papers and supporting documents.
The Court finds
12
Plaintiff's fee request reasonable.
13
to join this case on relatively short notice, prepare for trial,
14
and win.
15
many hours on the case, rendering Plaintiff's bills unreasonable,
16
but that argument is misplaced.
17
and won.
18
Plaintiff's request for additional fees incurred post-trial.
19
Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff's counsel their original
20
fee request of $190,672.50.
21
request for travel costs related to the deposition of John Fanning
22
reasonable and appropriate under the terms of the Consulting
23
Agreement.
The Court AWARDS Plaintiff's counsel costs of
24
$1,037.80.
The Court declines to revisit the Clerk of Court's
25
reduction of costs, ECF No. 148, finding the reductions
26
appropriate.
27
///
28
///
Plaintiff's counsel was able
Defendants claim that their own counsel did not expend as
They deserve fees.
Plaintiff's counsel did the work
However, the Court declines
Further, the Court finds Plaintiff's
5
1 III.
CONCLUSION
2
As explained above, Plaintiff Results ByIQ LLC's motion for
3
attorney fees and costs is GRANTED.
The Court AWARDS Plaintiff
4
$190,672.50 in fees and $1,037.80 in costs.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: September 11, 2013
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
6
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?