Calix, Inc. v. Alfa Consult, S.A.

Filing 26

ORDER for Second Supplemental Declaration Regarding Plaintiff's Requested Attorney's Fees re 17 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to Alfa Consult, S.A. filed by Calix, Inc., 25 Declaration in Support, filed by Calix, Inc.. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/15/15. (jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CALIX, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-00981-JCS
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9
10

ALFA CONSULT, S.A.,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 25

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER FOR SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S FEES

12
13

On June 12, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

14

(Dkt. 17, filed May 4, 2015). At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that attorney’s fees

15

should be awarded pursuant to section 3.4 of the Non-Exclusive Reseller Agreement. In addition,

16

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to submit an affidavit supporting her request for additional attorney’s

17

fees based on the time spent preparing for and appearing at the June 12, 2015 hearing. Later on

18

June 12, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Supplemental Declaration requesting additional

19

attorney’s fees, costs, and an updated prejudgment interest amount (Dkt. 25). The Supplemental

20

Declaration requests $3,075.00 in “additional fees and expenses…for work performed in June

21

2015.” Dkt. 25. The Supplemental Declaration also attaches invoices dated May 7, 2015 and

22

June 1, 2015 for attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts of $5,801.58 and $186.75, respectively.

23

Dkt. 25 Exs. C–D.

24

To recover attorney’s fees, a party must “submit evidence supporting the hours worked and

25

rates claimed.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). To support that the charged rates

26

are reasonable, the party bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the charged rates

27

are in line with the prevailing market rates in the relevant community–the rates for similar services

28

by lawyers of comparable skill, expertise, and reputation. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895

1

(1984); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

2

Therefore, to recover attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a second supplemental

3

declaration to support the charged rates of $375/hour for Ms. Sterling and $400/hour for Mr.

4

Dranit, including a description of Ms. Sterling’s and Mr. Dranit’s relevant experience. In addition,

5

to recover the “additional fees and expenses in the amount of $3,075.00” (Dkt. 25 ¶ 6), Plaintiff’s

6

counsel must submit a detailed record showing how this amount was generated, such as a time

7

sheet.1 See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986) opinion

8

amended on denial of reh'g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987).
To recover the requested attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a Second

9
10

Supplemental Declaration no later than Monday June 22, 2015.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: June 15, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Supplemental Declaration does not show how the requested amount of $3,075.00 was
generated. At the hearing on June 12, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that she would be
requesting approximately $1,800.00 for the five hours expended preparing for and attending the
hearing at a rate of $375/hour.
2