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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?