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