Nextdoor.com, Inc. v. Abhyanker
Filing
608
PUBLIC/REDACTED VERSION - ORDER Granting 577 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Judge Edward M. Chen. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2021)
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NEXTDOOR, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
RAJ ABHYANKER,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 12-cv-05667-EMC
PUBLIC/REDACTED VERSION
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Docket No. 577
12
13
Plaintiff Nextdoor, Inc. has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fee request is close to
14
15
$1 million, representing more than 1,000 hours of work. See Mot. at 1; Pulgram Decl., Ex. B. All
16
fees were incurred post-settlement. Defendant Raj Abhyanker opposes the motion. He contends
17
that Nextdoor is not entitled to fees because it is not the prevailing party. He also argues that,
18
even if Nextdoor were the prevailing party, many, if not all, of the attorney hours should not be
19
compensated.
Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby
20
21
finds that Nextdoor is the prevailing party and thus GRANTS the fee motion.1 The Court,
22
however, does not adjudicate at this time the amount of fees that should be awarded. Instead, the
23
Court orders the parties to a settlement conference with a magistrate judge to see if the parties can
24
reach agreement on the amount of fees and/or otherwise resolve the current dispute. The hearing
25
on the fee motion that was set for August 5, 2021, is hereby VACATED.
26
27
28
1
Mr. Abhyanker has filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. See Docket No. 600 (motion).
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS that request.
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 7
I.
1
2
3
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in December 2014. See Docket No. 42019 (Settlement Agreement).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
The fees requested by Nextdoor are, generally speaking, those incurred as of November 16,
2020. In terms of what has taken place since that date, the highlights are as follows:
•
On December 8, 2020, Mr. Abhyanker filed a motion to be relieved of his
14
obligations under the Settlement Agreement. See Docket No. 420-12 (motion).
15
The parties refer to this as the first motion under the Court’s retained jurisdiction
16
(“FMRJ”).
17
18
19
20
•
On December 16, 2020, Mr. Abhyanker filed a second motion under the Court’s
21
retained jurisdiction (“SMRJ”), claiming that Nextdoor had breached a provision in
22
the Settlement Agreement
23
See
24
Docket No. 445 (motion).
25
26
•
No. 460 (order).
27
28
In late January 2021, the Court denied the SMRJ in late January 2021. See Docket
•
In late February 2021, the Court denied the FMRJ. See Docket No. 474 (order).
2
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 7
1
Mr. Abhyanker subsequently appealed that decision. See Docket No. 500 (notice
2
of appeal).
3
•
4
5
6
7
8
9
The unilateral action
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
taken by Mr. Abhyanker consisted of the following: (1) filing a lawsuit against
12
Nextdoor seeking, inter alia, to invalidate six of its patents; (2) filing a lawsuit
13
against Nextdoor asserting, inter alia, infringement of six of his own patents; (3)
14
initiating six ex parte petitions for reexamination of Nextdoor’s patents; (4) filing a
15
lawsuit against Nextdoor seeking declaration that its logo was abandoned and
16
invalid; and (5) initiating a TTAB proceeding challenging Nextdoor’s logo. See
17
generally Docket No. 560 (order).
18
•
Mr. Abhyanker’s unilateral actions led to Nextdoor filing a motion to enforce the
19
settlement and for immediate interim relief (in March 2021). See Docket No. 524
20
(motion).
21
•
In April 2021, the Court granted Nextdoor’s motion for immediate relief
22
but reserved final adjudication of the motion to
23
24
enforce the settlement (even though the motion had merit) because of the Ninth
25
Circuit appeal. See Docket No. 560 (order).
26
•
Mr. Abhyanker subsequently dismissed the Ninth Circuit appeal. The Court
27
therefore held a status conference on June 1, 2021, to discuss with the parties what
28
remained to be done in the action. Nextdoor indicated that it intended to file a
3
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 7
1
motion for fees based on Mr. Abhyanker’s conduct. Mr. Abhyanker stated that he
2
still intended to proceed with his motion for sanctions (filed back in March 2021),
3
. See Docket No.
4
572 (minutes).
5
6
•
Subsequently, the Court granted Nextdoor’s motion to enforce the settlement (i.e.,
7
giving final relief rather than just immediate interim relief). See Docket No. 574
8
(order).
9
•
(motion)/
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Nextdoor then filed the pending fee motion in July 2021. See Docket No. 577
•
On July 16, 2021, the Court denied Mr. Abhyanker’s motion for sanctions, noting
12
that it lacked merit in light of the Court’s prior order in which it had granted
13
Nextdoor interim relief. See Docket No. 596 (order).
14
II.
DISCUSSION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 7
1
2
3
4
There is no doubt that, in the instant case, Nextdoor is the prevailing party. The Court has
5
repeatedly ruled in Nextdoor’s favor – e.g., denying Mr. Abhyanker’s motion to be relieved of his
6
obligations under the Settlement Agreement (i.e., his FMRJ), denying his SMRJ, and granting
7
Nextdoor’s motion for immediate interim relief as well as its ultimate motion for enforcement the
8
Settlement Agreement.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Mr. Abhyanker argues that he is the prevailing party because he was able to obtain one of
13
his main litigation objectives, see id. at 877 (stating that “a party who is denied direct relief on a
14
claim may nonetheless be found to be a prevailing party if it is clear that the party has otherwise
15
achieved its main litigation objective”)
16
17
18
. But this argument is unavailing because it ignores the fact that the Court denied Mr.
Abhyanker’s FMRJ
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Abhyanker contends still that, even if he is not the prevailing party, the Court should
still reject finding Nextdoor as the prevailing party
26
27
28
5
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
“[T]ypically, a determination of no prevailing party results when
both parties seek relief, but neither prevails, or when the ostensibly
prevailing party receives only a part of the relief sought.” By
contrast, when the results of the litigation on the contract claims are
not mixed – that is, when the decision on the litigated contract
claims is purely good news for one party and bad news for the other
– the Courts of Appeal have recognized that a trial court has no
discretion to deny attorney fees to the successful litigant.
13
Id. at 875-76. In short, “those parties whose litigation success is not fairly disputable [are entitled]
14
to claim attorney fees as a matter of right, while . . . the trial court [has] a measure of discretion to
15
find no prevailing party when the results of the litigation are mixed.” Id. at 876. “[W]hen one
16
party obtains a ‘simple, unqualified win’ on the single contract claim presented by the action, the
17
trial court may not invoke equitable considerations unrelated to litigation success, such as the
18
parties’ behavior during settlement negotiations or discovery proceedings, except as expressly
19
authorized by statute.” Id. at 877.
20
Given the standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in Hsu, the Court rejects
21
Mr. Abhyanker’s argument that there is no prevailing party in the instant case. The results in this
22
case are, in essence, a simple, unqualified win for Nextdoor.
23
24
25
Accordingly, the Court grants Nextdoor’s motion for fees. However, at this juncture, the
26
Court does not make a decision as to what constitutes a reasonable fee award. Instead, the Court
27
finds that it would be more fruitful to order the parties to a settlement conference with a magistrate
28
judge to determine if they can reach an agreement on the amount of fees and/or otherwise resolve
6
Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 7
1
the current dispute. Although this will require the parties to devote some additional resources, in
2
the long run, it makes more sense to try to achieve a final resolution now as, otherwise, it seems
3
likely that another appeal would follow.
III.
4
5
CONCLUSION
Nextdoor’s fee motion is granted but the Court defers ruling on a reasonable fee award.
6
The Clerk of the Court shall immediately refer this case to magistrate judge for a settlement
7
conference to address the remaining part of the fee motion.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: July 26, 2021
12
13
14
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?