LG Electronics Mobile Comm U.S.A., Inc. et al v. Xiaowen et al

Filing 145

ORDER Requesting Supplemental Briefing re 136 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., LG Corporation. It is ordered that LG shall file a supplemental brief, not to exceed t en pages, on or before thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed, further supporting its argument that its attorneys' fees are reasonable in this district. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/1/2017.(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LG CORPORATION, et al.,

Case No.: 16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
REGARDING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

HUANG XIAOWEN DBA TOPUUSHOP, et al.,

15
16

(ECF No. 136)

Defendants.

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and

19

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.’s (“LG”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Fee

20

Mot.,” ECF No. 136). The Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took the matter

21

under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No.

22

144.) The Court has already determined that LG is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees,

23

(see ECF No. 127, at 25), and all that remains is a calculation of those fees. However, the

24

Court is unable to fairly assess the reasonableness of LG’s attorneys’ hourly rates as

25

presently briefed. Specifically, LG cites to the Laffey Matrix to support its claim that its

26

attorneys’ rates “are commensurate with prevailing market rates.” (Fee Mot. 5 (citing Ex.

27

1); see also Sommers Decl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 136-2 (relying on Laffey Matrix to show

28

prevailing market rates across all firm types).) But the Court is not inclined, at this point,
1
16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

1

to rely on the Laffey Matrix in assessing the reasonableness of fees in this district. See,

2

e.g., Ruiz v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., No. 5CV2125 JLS (KSC), 2017 WL 1421996, at *4 n.1

3

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017) (Sammartino, J.); Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608

4

F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]ust because the Laffey matrix has been accepted in the

5

District of Columbia does not mean that it is a sound basis for determining rates elsewhere,

6

let alone in a legal market 3,000 miles away.”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Brummell, No.

7

15CV2601-MMA (MDD), 2016 WL 3552039, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2016),

8

reconsideration denied, No. 15CV2601-MMA (MDD), 2016 WL 4595140 (S.D. Cal. Sept.

9

2, 2016) (denying motion for attorneys’ fees because the plaintiff, relying on the Laffey

10

Matrix, did “not demonstrate that the hourly rates requested are reasonable vis-à -vis the

11

rates charged in ‘the forum in which the district court sits.’”); Perez v. Cozen & O'Connor

12

Grp. Long Term Disability Coverage, No. 05CV0440DMSAJB, 2007 WL 2142292, at *2

13

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007) (declining to use Laffey Matrix in its analysis because it “would

14

be contrary to Ninth Circuit law”). While LG cites to Northern District of California cases

15

applying the Laffey Matrix, LG fails to cite any Southern District of California cases

16

approving of and using the Laffey Matrix. Nor does LG more generally discuss the

17

reasonableness of the hourly rates as applied to this district. See, e.g., Camacho v.

18

Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, when determining a

19

reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court

20

sits.”); Prison Legal News, 608 F.3d at 455 (“Here, the forum is the Northern District of

21

California. The rates prevailing in that district for ‘similar services by lawyers of

22

reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation’ thus furnish the proper measure

23

of the reasonableness of the rates billed by PLN's attorneys.”).

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

1

Accordingly, LG SHALL FILE a supplemental brief, not to exceed ten pages, on

2

or before thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed,

3

further supporting its argument that its attorneys’ fees are reasonable in this district.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)