G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Pacheco et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES re 13 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/25/2019. (sjm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT
EVENTS, LLC,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COSTS AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

v.
ESTEBAN GARCIA PACHECO,
et al.,

[ECF No. 13]

Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s motion for

19

costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the

20

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

21

BACKGROUND

22

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff, an international distributor of sports and

23

entertainment programming, initiated this action against Defendants Esteban

24

Garcia Pacheco, individually and d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria,

25

and Alina Santamaria, individually and d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo

26

Birrieria, for their alleged unauthorized and unlawful inteception and exhibition of

27

Plaintiff’s sports and entertainment programing at Defendants’ commercial

28

establishment, Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria. (ECF No. 1.) In its
1
18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

1

complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of action against Defendants for alleged

2

violations of 47 U.S.C. § 553, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et

3

seq., and for conversion. (Id.) Defendants were served on April 17, 2018 (ECF

4

Nos. 4-5), but nevertheless failed to appear or respond to the complaint.

5

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default against Defendants

6

by the Clerk. (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk entered default against Defendants the

7

following day. (ECF No. 7.) On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff moved for default

8

judgment against Defendants and requested leave to file a motion for costs and

9

attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 10.) On March 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

10

motion for default judgment as to all causes of action asserted as well as leave to

11

file a motion for costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 11.) The Clerk entered default

12

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants the following day. (ECF No.

13

12.) On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed its present motion for costs and attorney’s

14

fees. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants have not filed any opposition to the present

15

motion or otherwise appeared in this action.

16

DISCUSSION

17

In its present motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the amount of

18

$2,519.83 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,007.00. (ECF No. 13-1, at 5.)

19

Plaintiff argues it is entitled to this award because 47 U.S.C. § 605 requires courts

20

to award costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing aggrieved party. (Id. at 2.)

21

Plaintiff further argues it is an “aggrieved party” under Section 605 because it “had

22

the exclusive nationwide distribution rights to” the intercepted programming. (Id.

23

at 2-3 (citing ECF No. 10-4, ¶ 3); see also ECF No. 10-4 ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 (closed-circuit

24

television license agreement for the intercepted programming).) The Court agrees

25

on both points. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6) (“[T]he term ‘any person aggrieved’

26

shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication

27

by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable

28

programming . . . .”); 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) (“The court-- . . . shall direct the
2
18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

1

recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an

2

aggrieved party who prevails.”).

3

In support of its request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff

4

filed a declaration of counsel, an itemized list of costs and attorney’s fees incurred

5

in this matter, as well as other relevant documentary evidence. (ECF No. 13-2.)

6

Plaintiff’s costs include investigative expenses ($1,935.00), process server fees

7

($184.83), and filing fees ($400.00). (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 9, 10 & Exs. 1–3.). Given all

8

costs for which reimbursement is sought by Plaintiff appear to be necessary to the

9

proper prosecution of this action and Section 605’s requirement that courts “direct

10

the recovery of full costs” to the prevailing party, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii)

11

(emphasis added), the Court concludes that these costs are recoverable.

12

Before awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees, however, the Court must

13

determine the reasonableness of such fees. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). To do

14

so, the Court will “apply the ‘lodestar’ method to determine what constitutes a

15

reasonable attorney's fee . . . . then adjust the lodestar upward or downward based

16

on a variety of factors.”1 Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th

17

Cir. 2013) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). “Under the

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The factors that may be considered by the Court include: “(1) the time and labor
required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill
requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee,
(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client
or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the
experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the
case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and
(12) awards in similar cases.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1209 n.11 (citations omitted).
“However, if [the Court] has taken any of these factors into account in either the
reasonable hours component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar
calculation, then it should not again reduce the lodestar.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
1

3
18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

1

lodestar method, the district court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing

2

party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate” to arrive

3

at the “lodestar figure.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). In doing so,

4

the Court “may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request, and exclude

5

those hours for which it would be unreasonable to compensate the prevailing

6

party[,]” because, for example, they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise

7

unnecessary.”

8

reasonable hourly rate is based upon the “prevailing market rates in the relevant

9

community,” taking into consideration “the experience, skill, and reputation of the

10

Id. at 1203 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The

attorney or paralegal.” Id. at 1205-06 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

11

Here, counsel for Plaintiff attests that his administrative assistant billed 7.32

12

hours at a rate of $100.00 per hour, his research attorney billed 4.5 hours at a rate

13

of $300.00 per hour, and he billed 1.85 hours at a rate of $500.00 per hour, for a

14

total attorney’s fee incurred of $3,007.00 on 13.67 billable hours, for a blended

15

hourly rate of approximately $219.97 per hour. (ECF No. 13-2 at ¶¶ 2, 6, 8 & Ex.

16

1.) Upon review of the detailed hourly billing records (id. at Ex. 1), the Court is

17

satisfied that all 13.67 billable hours for which reimbursement is sought were

18

reasonably necessary to the proper prosecution of this action. Further, the Court

19

is satisfied that the blended hourly billing rate of $219.97 is reasonable for this

20

geographic area in light of counsel’s experience, reputation, and abilities. (See id.

21

at ¶¶ 3-5.) Moreover, the Court concludes that no adjustment is necessary to the

22

lodestar figure given that many of the relevant factors are neutral on the facts of

23

this matter and the lodestar figure is commensurate with the attorney’s fees awards

24

in similar cases in this District. See, e.g., G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v.

25

Beltran, et al., 3:18-cv-02099-CAB-LL, ECF No. 13 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019)

26

($3,143.32 for 14.43 hours); G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Sanchez, et al.,

27

3:18-cv-02096-WQH-KSC, ECF No. 17 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2019) (awarding

28

$2,752.00 for 12.92 hours of legal work); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Paz-Padilla,
4
18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

1

et al., No. 3:12-cv-02228-GPC-WMC, ECF No. 18 (S.D. Cal. 2013) ($2,448.75 for

2

13.9 hours). Accordingly, the Court concludes that an award of $3,007.00 in

3

attorney’s fees to Plaintiff is reasonable and warranted.

4
5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s

6

fees (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and the Court awards Plaintiff $3,007.00 in

7

attorney’s fees and $2,519.83 in costs against Defendants.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated July 25, 2019

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS