Crossfit, Inc. v. Del Cueto Davalos et al

Filing 48

ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (Granting 47 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/25/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CROSSFIT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-00725-BLF
ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFF
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

v.
ANDRES DEL CUETO DAVALOS,
Defendant.

12
13

On February 24, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff CrossFit, Inc. (“CrossFit”)’s motion for

14

default judgment against Defendant Andres Del Cueto Davalos (“Del Cueto”) and entered

15

judgment in favor of Plaintiff. ECF 45, 46. The Court awarded CrossFit attorney’s fees and

16

litigation costs incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the amount to be

17

determined after the entry of default judgment. Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. Against

18

Def. Andres Del Cueto Davalos (“Prior Order”) 5–6, ECF 45. Presently before the Court is the

19

Declaration of Christopher D. Dusseault in support of CrossFit’s schedule of attorney’s fees and

20

bill of costs. Dusseault Decl., ECF 47. CrossFit seeks to recover $107,874.52 in fees and $1,752

21

in costs. Dusseault Decl. ¶¶ 10, 21. Because the Court has already determined that an award of

22

fees and costs is appropriate, the Court must now determine whether Plaintiff’s attorney rates and

23

the claimed costs are reasonable.

24

In calculating awards for attorneys’ fees, courts use “the ‘lodestar’ method, and the

25

amount of that fee must be determined on the facts of each case.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin.,

26

Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145,

27

1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Hensley v.

28

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). “The ‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of

1

hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.”

2

Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996) opinion amended on denial of

3

reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997). The moving party bears the burden of providing relevant

4

documentation demonstrating the reasonableness of the hours spent on the litigation. Hensley, 461

5

U.S. at 433. In the absence of adequate documentation supporting the number of hours expended

6

on the lawsuit, “the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Id. “The district court also

7

should exclude from this initial [lodestar] calculation hours that were not ‘reasonably expended.’”

8

Id. at 434 (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)).

9

When determining the reasonable hourly rate, the court must weigh the “experience, skill,
and reputation of the attorney requesting fees,” and compare the requested rates to prevailing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

amended on denial of reh’g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.

13

886, 886 (1984). Once calculated, the lodestar amount, which is presumptively reasonable, may

14

be further adjusted based on other factors not already subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation.

15

Morales, 96 F.3d at 363–64, 363 nn.3–4 (identifying factors) (citing Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras,

16

Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)).

17

A.

18

Plaintiff seeks to recover fees for work performed by six attorneys: Chris Dusseault,

Reasonableness of Rates

19

Perlette Jura, Abbey Hudson, Ilissa Samplin, Tom Pack, and Jose Massas Farell, as well as two

20

paralegals. Their hourly rates and titles are as follows:
Attorney
2014
2015
2016
Reduced Reduced Reduced
Rate
Rate
Rate
Chris Dusseault
$540
$610
$680
Perlette Jura
$515
$555
$595
Abbey Hudson
$515
$555
$595
Ilissa Samplin
$375
$435
$495
Tom Pack
$375
$435
$495
Jose Massas Farell
–
–
$295
Paralegal A
–
–
$135
Paralegal B
–
–
$115

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Title

Partner
Partner
Litigation Associate
Litigation Associate
Former Litigation Associate
Mexican Counsel
Paralegal
Paralegal

Dusseault Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9. In support of their request, Plaintiff, who bears the burden of establishing
28
2

1

reasonableness, states that the rates listed above have been found reasonable by other courts in this

2

district. Id. (citing Ferris v. All. Publ’g Inc, No. 15-cv-5675, 2016 WL 7116110 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

3

6, 2016)).

4

“In the Bay Area, ‘reasonable hourly rates for partners range from $560 to $800, for

5

associates from $285 to $510, and for paralegals and litigation support staff from $150 to $240.’”

6

In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 591–92 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Plaintiff’s

7

requested rates fall well within these parameters, and, based on the Court’s prior experience, the

8

Court find these rates to be reasonable in light of the attorneys’ skill and experience.

9
10

B.

Reasonableness of Hours

The Court next considers the reasonableness of the hours expended. The Court cannot

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“uncritically” accept the plaintiff’s representations; rather, it must assess the reasonableness of the

12

hours requested. Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir. 1984). In making

13

this determination, the Court can reduce hours when documentation is inadequate, or when the

14

requested hours are redundant, excessive, or unnecessary. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433–34.

15

Plaintiff expended 238.9 hours by the attorneys and paralegals mentioned above, however

16

only seeks compensation for 179.2 hours. Dusseault Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff submitted hourly records

17

divided by task, as follows:
Category of Tasks

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Filing of the
Complaint /
Maintenance
Service
Seeking Default
Total

Actual Time Spent
by Gibson Dunn
77.3 hours

Total Time Spent by Gibson
Dunn for Which CrossFit is
Requesting Compensation
58 hours

61.8 hours
99.8 hours
238.9 hours

46.35 hours
74.85 hours
179.2 hours

Id. For this work, Plaintiff seeks to recover $92,262.38 in fees. Dusseault Decl. ¶ 8.
Plaintiff also seeks to recover $15,612.14 in fees attributable to Mr. Farell’s and the two paralegals
efforts to serve Del Cueto. Id. ¶ 9; Ex. B to Dusseault Decl.
Plaintiff explains that the first category of work, filing of the complaint and maintenance of
the action, includes pre-complaint investigation, drafting of the Complaint, and conducting

28
3

1

additional research and analysis in support of the causes of action. Id. ¶ 11. In addition, this

2

category includes work done in connection with maintaining the action before the Court while

3

service was pending—namely, providing status updates to the Court and attending Case

4

Management Conferences. Id.; see also Ex. A to Dusseault Decl., ECF 47-1. Given the

5

complexity of this case, and the thoroughness of the Complaint, the Court finds 58 hours to be

6

reasonable.

7

The second category of work, service, includes time spent pursuing service, developing

8

alternative strategies to effectuate service, working with private investigators regarding service

9

issues, and repeated trips by Mexican counsel to the local court to check on the status of service.
Dusseault Decl. ¶ 12; Exs. A & B to Dusseault Decl., ECF 47-1, 47-2. Mr. Dusseault declares that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

CrossFit’s counsel and Mexican counsel were forced to expend a large amount of time and

12

resources on service because Del Cueto repeatedly attempted to evade service. Dusseault Decl. ¶

13

12; see also ECF 22, 31, 40. Given Del Cueto’s repeated attempts to evade service, and the

14

transnational nature of service, the Court finds 46.35 hours to be reasonable.

15

The third category of work, seeking default against Del Cueto, reflects the time spent

16

preparing the Request for Entry of Default, the Motion for Default Judgment and supporting

17

documentation, as well as the time preparing for the hearing on the same. Dusseault Decl. ¶ 13;

18

Ex. A to Dusseault Decl. The Court finds the time expended for this purpose reasonable.

19

The Court notes that Plaintiff has voluntarily reduced its fee request by 25% of the hours

20

expended and decreased counsel’s regular hourly rate by 25%. This voluntary reduction

21

adequately addresses any concern the Court might have regarding hours expended prosecuting the

22

case. Thus, the Court finds no reason to further reduce the lodestar amount. The total fees

23

requested are reasonable and will be awarded.

24

In sum, the Court finds the hours spent on this case to be reasonable in light of the work

25

accomplished and the skill and expertise of the attorneys. Accordingly, the Court does not find it

26

necessary or appropriate to adjust the lodestar amount.

27

C.

28

In addition, CrossFit seeks $1,752 as reimbursement for costs related to this lawsuit.

Costs

4

1

Dusseault Decl. ¶¶ 21, 22; Exs. C & D to Dusseault Decl., ECF 47-3, 47-4. Specifically, CrossFit

2

seeks $1,352 in costs in connection with service of this lawsuit, and $400 in costs connected with

3

filing this lawsuit. Finding these costs reasonable, the Court awards Plaintiff $1,752 in costs.

4

D.

5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall recover

Order

6

attorney’s fees in the amount of $107,874.52 and costs in the amount of $1,752, for a total of

7

$109,626.52

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: April 25, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5