Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Justin Johnston et al

Filing 64

ORDER GRANTING 58 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/31/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

JUSTIN JOHNSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-03404-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS
[Re: ECF 58]

12
On January 22, 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Twitch

13
14

Interactive, Inc.’s (“Twitch”) motion for default judgment against Defendants Michael and

15

Katherine Anjomi (collectively, “the Anjomis”) and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff.1

16

ECF 55, 56. The Court awarded Twitch attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred in this action,

17

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the amount to be determined after Twitch submitted a motion for

18

attorneys’ fees. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. (“Prior

19

Order”) 23–24, ECF 55. Presently before the Court is Twitch’s motion for attorneys’ fees and

20

costs and the Declaration of Holly M. Simpkins in support of Twitch’s motion. Mot., ECF 58;

21

Simpkins Decl., ECF 59. Twitch seeks to recover $57,802.50 in attorneys’ fees and $2,122.25 in

22

costs. Mot. 1. Because the Court has already determined that an award of fees and costs is

23

appropriate (Prior Order 23–24), the Court must now determine whether Twitch’s attorney fees

24

and the claimed costs are reasonable.
In calculating awards for attorneys’ fees, courts use “the ‘lodestar’ method, and the amount

25
26

of that fee must be determined on the facts of each case.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523

27
28

1

The Court denied the full amount of damages requested by Twitch.

F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4

2

(9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart,

3

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

4

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

5

City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996) opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d

6

981 (9th Cir. 1997). The moving party bears the burden of providing relevant documentation

7

demonstrating the reasonableness of the hours spent on the litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

8

In the absence of adequate documentation supporting the number of hours expended on the

9

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

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

434 (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)).
When determining the reasonable hourly rate, the court must weigh the “experience, skill,

12
13

and reputation of the attorney requesting fees,” and compare the requested rates to prevailing

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

A.

Reasonableness of Rates
Twitch seeks to recover fees for work performed by four attorneys: Judy Jennison

22

(Partner), Holly M. Simpkins (Senior Counsel), Andrew Klein (Associate), and Lauren Staniar

23

(Associate). Mot. 4. Twitch does not seek fees for another partner and associate and the paralegal

24

who also worked on this case. Id. The hourly rates of the four attorneys are as follows:
Attorney
Hourly Rate
Title
Judy Jennison
$635
Partner
Holly M.
$570
Senior
Simpkins
Counsel
Andrew Klein
$340 (prior to 2017)
Associate
$425 (for 2017)
Lauren Staniar
$390
Associate
2

25
26
27
28

1

Simpkins Decl. ¶¶ 8–11. According to Twitch, Ms. Jennison’s hourly rate varied over the course

2

of this case, but it seeks to recover for only the lowest rate charged by Ms. Jennison. Id. ¶ 8.

3

Likewise, Twitch seeks to recover for only the lowest rate charged by Ms. Simpkins. Id. ¶ 9. In

4

support of its request, Twitch, who bears the burden of establishing reasonableness, states that the

5

rates listed are reasonable in light of recent awards in this District. Mot. 5 (collecting cases).
The Court agrees with Twitch. Courts in this District generally have “determined that rates

7

ranging from $225 to $600 are reasonable” in an intellectual property case. Livingston v. Art.com,

8

Case No. 13-cv-03748-JSC, 2015 WL 4319851, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) (Report &

9

Recommendation) (reviewing cases from this District), adopted as modified on other issues, 2015

10

WL 4307808 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2015). Moreover, courts have noted that rates for some attorneys

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

range from $600 to $900 per hour. Goldberg v. Cameron, No. C-05-03534 RMW, 2011 WL

12

3515899, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011); see also In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D.

13

573, 591–92 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“In the Bay Area, ‘reasonable hourly rates for partners range from

14

$560 to $800, for associates from $285 to $510, and for paralegals and litigation support staff

15

from $150 to $240.’”). Indeed, the American Intellectual Property Law Association report

16

submitted by Twitch shows that some attorneys with 25 years of experience charge an hourly rate

17

of more than $600. See Ex. B to Simpkins Decl., ECF 59-1. Here, Ms. Jennison has more than 25

18

years of experience representing companies and individuals in intellectual property matters.

19

Simpkins Decl. ¶ 8. Thus, Ms. Jennison’s hourly rate of $635 is within the reasonable range as

20

noted by other courts in this District. Likewise, the other three attorneys’ rates fall well within the

21

range determined to be reasonable. Given the consistency with other courts’ determination, and,

22

based on the Court’s prior experience, the Court finds the requested rates to be reasonable in light

23

of the attorneys’ skill and experience.

24
25

B.

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

26

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

27

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

28

this determination, the Court can reduce hours when documentation is inadequate, or when the
3

1

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

2

This action is a multi-defendant case and some of the tasks performed by the four attorneys

3

were related to all defendants. Mot. 5. To account for this factor, Twitch reasonably weighted the

4

proportion of time each attorney spent in connection to the Anjomis as opposed to other

5

defendants. Simpkins Decl. ¶ 13. As such, Twitch seeks fees for time spent only on the Anjomis.

6

Mot. 6. Twitch submitted hourly records divided by task for each attorney, as follows:

7

Judy Jennison
Phase

8
9
10

Complaint
Service of Process

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Discovery and Related
Motions
Motion for Default

14

Judgment

15

Statement of the Service Rendered

Hours

Reviewed and revised the complaint and
offered high-level guidance regarding strategy.
Directed efforts to locate and serve the
Anjomis; reviewed and revised Motion for
Alternate Service.
Reviewed and revised Motion for Limited
Discovery; and reviewed and revised draft
discovery.
Reviewed and revised Motion for Default
Judgment; reviewed and revised supporting
declarations.

1.7

Total

2.1

0.8

4.1
8.7

16
17

Holly Simpkins

18

Phase

19
20

Service of Process

21
22
23
24

27
28

Coordinated, drafted, reviewed and revised
Motion for Alternate Service and associated
documents; coordinated service.
Coordinated, reviewed and revised Motion for
Limited Discovery; reviewed and revised
discovery requests to the Anjomi defendants.

Discovery and Related
Motions

25
26

Statement of the Service Rendered

Motion for Default
Judgment

Reviewed and revised the third-party
subpoenas to the PayPal and the Anjomis’
financial institutions; reviewed and analyzed
the document production from PayPal, Bank of
America, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase.
Coordinated, drafted, reviewed and revised
Motion for Default Judgment and associated
documents.

Total

Hours
7.1

8.1

9.8
25.0

4

Andrew Klein

1

Phase

2
3

Complaint Drafting

4
Service of Process

5
6

Discovery and Related
Motions
Motion for Default

7
8

Judgment
9

Statement of the Service Rendered
Gathered and synthesized information on
defendants; researched potential causes of
action; drafted complaint.
Researched and drafted Motion for Alternate
Service and associated documents; assembled
service packets.
Reviewed, revised and filed Motion for
Limited Discovery and supporting documents.
Coordinated filing of Motion for Default
Judgment.

Total

Hours
17.9

11.9
1.4
0.8
32.0

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Lauren Staniar

12

Phase
13

Statement of the Service Rendered

Hours

Researched and drafted Motion for Limited
Discovery and supporting documents; drafted
discovery requests to the Anjomi defendants.

14
15
16

Discovery and Related
Motions

17
18
19
20

Motion for Default

21

Judgment
22

Drafted subpoenas to PayPal and the Anjomis’
financial institutions; oversaw service of same;
fielded questions from and worked with
PayPal and the Anjomis’ financial institutions
with respect to the subpoenas; reviewed and
analyzed the discovery responses from PayPal,
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan
Chase.
Researched and drafted Motion for Default
Judgment and supporting documents; analyzed
third-party discovery to substantiate the
requested damages; oversaw filing of the same.

Total

23

19.9

49.1
69.0

24

Simpkins Decl. ¶ 12. Twitch states that it omits from the above tables 19.3 hours spent on case

25

management and related tasks. Id. ¶ 14. The total time in the above tables amount to 134.7 hours.

26

Id.

27

Twitch also submits a breakdown of the (1) hours and fees by timekeeper and (2) hours

28
5

1

and fees by task as set forth below:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Mot. 6. As set forth in the above tables, the work performed by Twitch’s counsel can be divided

16

into four categories.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The first category of work includes pre-complaint investigation, gathering and synthesizing
information on the Anjomis, researching and analyzing potential causes of action, and drafting the
Complaint. See Simpkins Decl. ¶ 12. Given the thoroughness of the Complaint, and the
complexity of this case, as reflected in the number of causes of action and numerous exhibits
attached to the Complaint (see ECF 1), the Court finds 19.6 hours to be reasonable.
The second category of work, service of the Complaint, includes time spent pursuing
service, directing efforts to locate the Anjomis, and preparing and filing a motion for alternate
service. See Simpkins Decl. ¶ 12. Given the difficulty in locating and serving the Anjomis, and
the fact that Twitch had to develop alternative strategies to effectuate service, the Court finds 21.1
hours to be reasonable.
The third category of work involves limited discovery on the Anjomis. Due to the

28
6

1

Anjomis’ failure to defend this action, the Court allowed Twitch to seek limited discovery so that

2

Twitch could obtain evidence to prepare its motion for default judgment and claim for damages.

3

ECF 45. In this process, Twitch prepared discovery requests to the Anjomis, prepared and filed a

4

motion for limited discovery, prepared subpoenas directed to multiple financial institutions, and

5

reviewed discovery responses from those institutions. See Simpkins Decl. ¶ 12. Considering the

6

complexity of discovery and the process of conducting discovery on third-parties, the Court finds

7

30.2 hours expended for discovery to be reasonable.

8
9

The fourth category of work, seeking default against the Anjomis, reflects the time spent
researching and drafting the motion for default judgment, preparing supporting documents, and
analyzing third-party documents to substantiate the request for damages. See Simpkins Decl. ¶ 12.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The Court recognizes that Twitch’s motion for default judgment was thorough and attached

12

numerous exhibits to substantiate its claim for damages. Moreover, Twitch conducted a detailed

13

calculation and analysis based on the Anjomis’ financial documents produced by third-parties to

14

prove its damages. As such, the Court finds 63.8 hours expended for this purpose reasonable.

15

The Court also notes that Twitch voluntarily reduced its fee request. In particular, Twitch

16

states that counsel utilized more personnel than in a typical case because of the Anjomis’

17

prolonged efforts to evade service of process and the length of time over which this case

18

proceeded. Mot. 8. Twitch does not seek fees for considerable time spent by a paralegal and

19

another partner and associate who assisted in the investigation, case strategy, and other tasks in

20

this matter. Id.; see Simpkins Decl. ¶ 14. Twitch also reduced the overall number of hours spent

21

by the four attorneys on various tasks to account for any possible duplication. Mot. 8; Simpkins

22

Decl. ¶ 14. In addition, Twitch does not seek fees for the time spent to prepare and file the instant

23

motion. Mot. 8. The voluntary reduction and conservative time reported by Twitch’s counsel

24

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

25

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

26

requested are reasonable and will be awarded.

27
28

In sum, the Court finds the hours spent on this case to be reasonable in light of the work
accomplished and the skill and expertise of the attorneys. Accordingly, the Court does not find it
7

1
2

necessary or appropriate to adjust the lodestar amount.
C.

Twitch seeks $2,122.25 as reimbursement for costs related to this lawsuit. Simpkins Decl.

3
4

Costs

¶ 17. The requested costs are shown in the following table:

5

Item / Task

Weighted Amount

6

Filing Fee

$66.67

7

Investigator Fees

$1,690.33

8

Pro Hac Vice fee for core team

$50.83

Subpoena Service, Production Costs, and

9

Associated Fees

10

$314.42
$2,122.25

Total

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Twitch weighted each item by the amount that can be attributed to the Anjomis. Simpkins

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Decl. ¶ 18. Such an approach to weighting the costs is reasonable. Finding the requested costs
reasonable, the Court awards Twitch $2,122.25 in costs.
D.

Order
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Twitch shall recover attorneys’

fees in the amount of $57,802.50 and costs in the amount of $2,122.25, for a total of $59,924.75.
Twitch may submit a proposed amended judgment to reflect this award.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: July 31, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
8