G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Zarazua

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/29/2022. (jms)

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,
v.

16

AMERICA ZAMORA ZARAZUA,
individually and doing business as
El Comal,

17

Defendant.

15

18

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
[Dkt. 12]

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 20cv00816–LAB–MSB

On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“Plaintiff”)

19

sought

20

(“Defendant”), d/b/a El Comal Antojitos Mexicanos Restaurant (“El Comal”).

21

(Dkt. 6). Plaintiff claims that Defendant unlawfully “intercepted, received and

22

published” a boxing fight that was displayed on Defendant’s televisions in El Comal

23

without first obtaining the sublicensing rights for it. The Court granted default

24

judgment on September 30, 2021, (Dkt. 10), and awarded a total judgment of

25

$2,625.00, representing $1,750.00 in statutory damages and $875.00 in

26

conversion fees.

27
28

default

judgment

against

Defendant America

Zamora

Zarazua

Plaintiff now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this
action. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.
1

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1
2

I.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
A. Legal Standard

3

Reasonable attorneys’ fees are recoverable under both 47 U.S.C.

4

§ 553(c)(2)(C) and § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) for an “aggrieved party who prevails,”

5

including any person with proprietary rights in an intercepted communication by

6

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

7

cable programming. 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) and 605(d)(6). This would include “a

8

program distributor with exclusive distribution rights.” J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

9

Nguyen, No. 13–CV–02008–LHK, 2014 WL 60014, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014).

10

“Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district court must then determine

11

what fees are reasonable.” Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th

12

Cir. 2019) (quoting Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir.

13

2016)). The presumptive method to calculate this is the “lodestar method,” which

14

“provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a

15

lawyer’s services.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Using this

16

method, courts calculate “the number of hours reasonably expended on the

17

litigation and then multiply that number by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id.; Vargas v.

18

Howell, 949 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.

19

886, 888 (1984)).

20

The party seeking attorneys’ fees “bears the burden of establishing

21

entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and

22

hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. This includes “submitting evidence of the

23

hours worked, the rate charged, and that the rate charged is in line with the

24

prevailing market rate of the relevant community.” G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC

25

v. Parker, No. 3:20–cv–00801–BEN–RBB, 2018 WL 164998, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

26

19, 2021) (quoting Carson v. Billings Police Dep’t, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir.

27

2006)). The relevant community is “the forum in which the district court sits.”

28

Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting
2

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010)); see

2

also Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1261–63 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The fee

3

applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the

4

affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in

5

the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and

6

reputation.”). If the moving party in a fee motion “satisfies its burden of showing

7

that the claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable, the resulting product is

8

presumed to be the reasonable fee.” Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614,

9

622–23 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the Court has discretion to exclude those

10

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

11

because, for example, they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”

12

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Pacheco, No. 18–cv–00462–BTM–AGS, 2019

13

WL 3388362, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2019) (quoting Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1203).

14
15

B. Discussion
i. Thomas Riley

16

Counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas Riley (“Mr. Riley” or “Plaintiff’s Counsel”),

17

demonstrates that his hourly rate of $550 is reasonable. Mr. Riley is a licensed

18

attorney and member in good standing in three states: Pennsylvania, New Jersey,

19

and California. (Dkt. 12-1, Declaration of Thomas Riley (“Riley Decl.”), ¶ 3). He has

20

been practicing law for approximately twenty-eight years, and his firm has

21

specialized in the civil prosecution of commercial signal piracy claims since

22

December 1994. (Id. at ¶¶ 3–4).

23

This District has held a range of rates from $450–750 per hour to be

24

reasonable for a senior partner. See Gallagher v. Philipps, No. 20cv00993–LL–

25

BLM, 2022 WL 848329, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022); Youngevity Int’l Corp. v.

26

Smith, No. 16–cv–0070–BTM–JLB, 2018 WL 2113238, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 7,

27

2018) (“Courts in this district have held a range of rates from $450-750 per hour

28

reasonable for a senior partner in a variety of litigation contexts and specialties.”).
3

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

Mr. Riley’s hourly rate of $550 falls within this range and is reasonable.

2

Having determined the hourly rate is reasonable, the Court must next

3

determine whether the number of hours billed by Mr. Riley on this case—2.61

4

hours—is reasonable. Mr. Riley provides a billing statement with block-billed time

5

entries, reflecting the time he expended on various tasks. (Riley Decl., Ex. 1). Mr.

6

Riley worked a total of 2.61 hours, (id.), and in his supporting declaration, he

7

explains that “[b]illable hours for legal services rendered are reconstructed by way

8

of a thorough review of the files themselves.” (Id. ¶ 7). But as with what appears to

9

be Mr. Riley’s usual practice, these “reconstructed”

records

are not

10

contemporaneous and therefore less reliable and more likely to be inaccurate. See

11

G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Hernandez, No. 20-CV-2112-MMA (RBB), 2021

12

WL 3290422, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021) (“Thus, the ‘reconstructed’ billing

13

records are not contemporaneous. This appears to be Mr. Riley’s standard

14

practice.”). Moreover, many of his time entries appear duplicative of tasks

15

completed by either his research attorney or administrative assistant. (See Riley

16

Decl., Ex. 1). But because his time entries are in block-billed format, it’s difficult for

17

the Court to ascertain exactly how much time he billed on these duplicative tasks.

18

Courts may reduce an award of attorneys’ fees where the documentation of

19

the hours is inadequate, the hours are duplicated, or the hours expended are

20

excessive or otherwise unnecessary. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 438 n.13;

21

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

22

omitted). The Court therefore finds that a one-third reduction of Mr. Riley’s total

23

hours is appropriate to mitigate against the risks associated with his duplicative

24

and non-contemporaneous billing. Of the 2.61 billed by Mr. Riley, the number of

25

hours reasonably expended by him is 1.75, and the Court thus awards a total of

26

$962.50 in attorney’s fees to Mr. Riley.

27
28

ii. Research Attorney
Plaintiff additionally requests $1,800.00 in attorneys’ fees for an unnamed
4

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

research attorney, for 6.00 billable hours at a rate of $300 per hour. (Riley Decl.

2

¶ 3). Plaintiff supports its motion for fees by providing cursory information about

3

the research attorney’s academic credentials, bar admission status, and

4

employment at Mr. Riley’s firm. (Id.). But the motion and accompanying declaration

5

don’t even identify who this research attorney is by name, nor do they provide any

6

information to substantiate that $300 is a reasonable hourly rate for a like attorney

7

in this forum—a necessary component of the lodestar method. See Jordan, 815

8

F.2d at 1263 (“The fee applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory

9

evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in

10

line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of

11

reasonably comparable skill and reputation.”). Plaintiff fails to include the type of

12

details required for the Court to adequately assess the reasonableness of the fees

13

requested.

14

Despite previous courts repeatedly raising this issue with him, Plaintiff’s

15

Counsel again neglects to provide relevant information about this research

16

attorney. See, e.g., G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Hernandez, No. 20-CV-2112-

17

MMA (RBB), 2021 WL 3290422, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021) (“However, the

18

research attorney is not given a name, and there is no supporting information that

19

demonstrates that his $300 hourly rate is reasonable in this forum.”); G & G Closed

20

Cir. Events, LLC v. Garcia, No. CV-19-05134-PHX-SPL, 2020 WL 5535758, at *4

21

(D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2020) (finding insufficient the brief description of the unnamed

22

research attorney’s qualifications); G & G Closed Cir. Events LLC v. Espinoza, No.

23

CV-18-08216-PCT-JAT, 2020 WL 1703630, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020) (“Mr.

24

Riley’s research attorney also poses a problem because (as is his usual practice)

25

Mr. Riley has provided only scant information about this unidentified attorney,

26

namely that he has practiced law for 25 years and worked with Mr. Riley for 10 of

27

those.”).

28

Because Plaintiff again fails to meet its burden of proving that the $300 hourly
5

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

rate is reasonable, the Court does not award attorneys’ fees for the unnamed

2

research attorney. See Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th

3

Cir. 2018) (“In a case in which a defendant fails to appear or otherwise defend

4

itself, however, the burden of scrutinizing an attorney's fee request—like other

5

burdens—necessarily shifts to the court.”); see also Hernandez, 2021 WL

6

3290422, at *3 (declining to award attorneys’ fees to an unnamed research

7

attorney); J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Segura, No. 4:17–cv–05335–YGR (KAW),

8

2018 WL 1868271, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018) (recommending denial of fees

9

for the “unsubstantiated work” of Riley’s unnamed research attorney).

10

iii. Administrative Assistant

11

Plaintiff also requests $713.90 in fees for an unidentified administrative

12

assistant, for 6.49 billable hours at a rate of $110 per hour. (Riley Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1

13

at 3). The billing invoice provided to the Court reflects block-billed entries for the

14

administrative assistant’s tasks, many of which are duplicative of tasks billed for

15

by Riley and the research attorney, including review of court filings, preparation of

16

motions, and execution of proofs of service. (Id., Ex. 1).

17

But courts in this Circuit have routinely “declined to award fees for clerical

18

work by administrative assistants, particularly where there is a lack of specificity in

19

such billing and the billing is duplicative of attorney time.” J & J Sports Prods. Inc.

20

v. Cervantes, No. 116CV00485DADJLT, 2019 WL 935387, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb.

21

26, 2019) (providing list of example cases); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v.

22

Medoza-Lopez, No. 17CV06421YGRJSC, 2018 WL 5099262, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

23

13, 2018) (declining to award administrative fees “where, as here, counsel has

24

block-billed time for himself and the administrative assistant for performing the

25

same tasks”); J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Marini, No. 1:16–cv–0477–AWI–JLT, 2018

26

WL 2155710, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2018) (declining to award fees for tasks

27

completed by the administrative assistant). And where, as here, the work

28

conducted by the administrative assistant is purely clerical in nature, including
6

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

reviewing and preparing files, filing and serving motions, and executing proofs of

2

service, it “should be absorbed into a firm’s overhead rather than billed at a set

3

rate.” Hernandez, 2021 WL 3290422, at *3 (citing Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d

4

906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009)); see also Neil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 495 F. App’x 845,

5

847 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

6

declining to award [the plaintiff’s] attorney’s fees for purely clerical tasks such as

7

filing documents and preparing and serving summons.”).
Accordingly, the Court declines to award fees for the work performed by the

8
9

administrative assistant.
iv. Conclusion

10

The Court awards a total of $962.50 in attorneys’ fees.

11
12

II.

COSTS

13

In addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff also requests $2,411.77 in

14

pre-filing investigative expenses, courier and photocopy charges, and filing fees.

15

(See Riley Decl., Ex. 1 at 3). Plaintiff provides documentation for the investigative

16

charges in the form of three invoices, although none provide any information about

17

the investigators’ qualifications or the extent of the investigators’ services. (See id.,

18

Ex. 2).

19

In line with other courts in this Circuit, the Court declines to award pre-filing

20

investigative costs, particularly given Plaintiff’s lack of properly documented

21

invoices. See G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No. 1:20-CV-1736 JLT

22

SAB, 2022 WL 348165, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (“Because investigative

23

expenses are not generally recoverable costs, denial of Plaintiff's request for the

24

investigation costs is appropriate.”); G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Miranda,

25

No. 20–cv–07684–CRB, 2022 WL 35602, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2022) (“Pre-filing

26

investigative costs are not costs incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit and thus not

27

recoverable.”); G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Barajas-Quijada, No. 1:19-CV-

28

1259 AWI JLT, 2020 WL 1640005, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (requiring
7

20cv00816–LAB–MSB

1

documentation “beyond the submission of a bare invoice to be provided to support

2

an award of investigative costs”); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Beltran, 2019 WL

3

3501451, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2019) (“pre-filing investigative costs are not

4

typically awarded by courts in this circuit”).

5
6
7

The Court awards costs in the amount of $511.77 for reimbursement of filing
fees, courier charges, and photocopy charges.
III.

CONCLUSION

8

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for

9

attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court AWARDS Plaintiff a total of $1,474.27,

10
11
12
13
14

representing $962.50 in attorneys’ fees and $511.77 in costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2022
Honorable Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

20cv00816–LAB–MSB