SONG FI, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. et al

Filing 144

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/16/16. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2016)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

SONG FI, INC., JOSEPH N.
BROTHERTON, LISA M. PELLEGRINO,
N.G.B., RASTA ROCK, INC.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 14-5080 CW
ORDER AWARDING
ATTORNEYS' FEES

v.
GOOGLE, INC., YOUTUBE LLC,
Defendants.
________________________________/
The Court awarded attorneys' fees to Defendants for their

12

work bringing the motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs'

13

counsel, Cozen O'Connor.

14

directed Defendants to submit documentation of hours spent and

15

reasonable rates.

16

written responses.

17

Docket Nos. 114, 127.

The Court

It considers that submission and the subsequent

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(4) permits a sanction

18

in the form of attorneys' fees and other expenses "directly

19

resulting from the violation."

20

form, the measure "is not actual expenses and fees but those the

21

court determines to be reasonable."

22

1165, 1185 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh'g sub nom.

23

In re Yagman, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986).

24

of determining the reasonableness of the award is inquiring into

25

the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

26

exceed those expenses and fees that were reasonably necessary to

27

resist the offending action."

28

rigidly apply the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras

When awarding sanctions in this

Matter of Yagman, 796 F.2d

An "essential part

Recovery should never

Id. at 1184-85.

The court need not

1

Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), but it "must make

2

some evaluation of the fee breakdown submitted by counsel."

3

at 1185.

4

Further, the Court must consider "ability to pay."

Id.
Id.

The Court awards eighty percent of the requested attorneys'

5

fees and all the requested costs. Although the Court finds the

6

hourly rates to be reasonable based on its experience and

7

knowledge of local hourly rates, not all of the hours spent were

8

"reasonably necessary" to file the Rule 11 motion.

9

F.2d at 1185.

Yagman, 796

It was not reasonably necessary for two attorneys

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to communicate with their client regarding the motion for a

11

combined total exceeding ten hours.1

12

drafting and finalizing the opening Rule 11 brief alone accounts

13

for over fifty-six hours.2

14

concluded that twenty-five hours is reasonable for prosecuting a

15

Rule 11 motion.

16

(8th Cir. 1994) (awarding attorneys' fees as sanctions under an

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Further, researching,

By comparison, the Eighth Circuit has

Kirk Capital Corp. v. Bailey, 16 F.3d 1485, 1491

1

These summarized entries include: "Communicate with client
regarding Rule 11 motion"--2.6 hours; "Communicate with client
regarding Rule 11 motion strategy"--3.0 hours; and "Communicate
with client regarding draft of Rule 11 motion"--5.2 hours. Docket
No. 128, Willen Dec. ¶¶ 4-5.
2

These summarized entries include: "Conduct legal research
regarding primary arguments in support of Rule 11 motion"--8.0
hours; "Outline Rule 11 motion"--2.1 hours; "Draft Rule 11
motion"--8.8 hours; "Review and revise Rule 11 motion per internal
and client feedback"--8.1 hours; "Proofread, cite check and
finalize Rule 11 motion; review and assist client in preparation
of supporting declarations; prepare exhibits and proposed order;
research service and filing requirements"--9.6 hours; "Draft/edit
Rule 11 motion; conduct legal research regarding primary
arguments"--7.9 hours; "Review and revise Rule 11 motion and
supporting documents per client feedback"--7.5 hours; and
"Finalize Rule 11 motion and supporting documents for service and
filing"--4.4 hours. Willen Dec. ¶¶ 4-5.
2

1

older version of Rule 11 where plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed

2

their complaint instead of responding to a motion to dismiss).

3

Finally, Cozen O'Connor did not indicate that it is unable to pay.

4
5
6

Cozen O'Connor shall pay $42,723.75 in fees and $129.66 in
costs.

It need not pay before judgment is entered in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: September 16, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
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
3