Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 107 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VIETNAM REFORM PARTY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 17-cv-00291-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 107

VIET TAN - VIETNAM REFORM
PARTY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On January 20, 2017, Plaintiff Vietnam Reform Party filed a trademark action against

14

Defendants Viet Tan—Vietnam Reform Party (“VT Corp.”), as well as individuals Nguyen Thanh

15

Tu (“Tu”) and Michelle Duong (“Duong”). Dkt. No. 1. Since then, only Defendant Tu has

16

appeared. See Dkt. No. 50. Defendant Tu and Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement, and

17

Defendant Tu was dismissed with prejudice from this action. Dkt. No. 84. On January 14, 2019,

18

Plaintiff sought default judgment against the remaining Defendants, VT Corp. and Duong. Dkt.

19

No. 86. On August 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the

20

motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 90. Plaintiff now seeks an award of $164,981.00 in

21

attorneys’ fees and $7,140.56 in costs pursuant to F.R.C.P. § 54 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) against

22

Defendant VT Corp. No response or opposition has been filed.

23

District Courts may not accept “uncritically plaintiff’s representations concerning the time

24

expended on this case,” as “such a procedure is inadequate.” Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743

25

F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir. 1984). “The proper standard . . . is not whether the attorneys involved

26

felt their time was usefully spent, but whether the time spent was reasonably necessary to the

27

effective prosecution of plaintiff’s federal trademark claims.” Id. Further, because Plaintiff

28

settled with Defendant Tu, any request should not include fees related to the litigation or

1
2

settlement proceedings as to him.
Plaintiff “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are

3

excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).

4

With the exception of a vague statement that “our firm routinely cuts time incurred by its attorneys

5

and other legal professionals, even though the actual time spent on the task was greater than that

6

which was billed,” no such effort by Plaintiff has been shown to this Court. Dkt. No. 107-1 ¶ 28.

7

If Plaintiff has voluntarily reduced its fee request or excluded excessive hours, it must give the

8

Court specific information regarding the amount of, and rationale for, such reduction. See, e.g.,

9

Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, 16-cv-03404-BLF, 2018 WL 3632171, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

31, 2018).
Plaintiff also includes a description of the billing attorneys’ credentials, and a chart of the

12

hourly rate, total hours, and total amount billed for each attorney, paralegal, and law clerk. Dkt.

13

No. 107-1 ¶¶ 11-27. Concerningly, Plaintiff also appears to include in the $164,981.00 in fees

14

requested unbilled “expected fees that will be incurred in drafting” a reply to the present motion.

15

Dkt. 107 at 3. As noted, no response or objection has been filed. The present record does not

16

permit adequate review. See, e.g., Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Chun, 18-cv-05476-BLF,

17

2019 WL 5268883, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2019) (noting that plaintiff submitted a “detailed

18

itemization of attorneys’ fees and costs,” including a breakdown of hours spent on the complaint,

19

motion for default judgment, motion for fees, and managing the case). This Court must be able to

20

perform an “analysis of the time records actually presented in this case.” Sealy, 743 F.2d at 1385.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

For the reasons detailed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to

2

the filing of an amended motion within 10 days from the entry of this Order that includes

3

Plaintiff’s time records and a detailed, itemized breakdown of fees and costs. Among the above-

4

mentioned inclusions, such detailed breakdown must include the (1) hours and fees by timekeeper,

5

and (2) hours and fees by task. Plaintiff must also provide detail or comparisons regarding “the

6

prevailing fees for work of similar nature and quality in the area,” rather than conclusory

7

statements. Dkt. No. 107-1 ¶¶ 7, 10; Sealy, 743 F.2d at 1385.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/25/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3