DIRECTV, LLC v. Preston et al

Filing 63

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on May 18, 2017. The 44 Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs is granted. The Court finds it reasonable to award $5,950 in attorneys fees plus $161.74 in costs, totaling $6,111.74. DirecTV's 61 Motion to Strike the Response to the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is granted. The clerk is directed to strike the 60 Response to the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (RS1, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 18 May, 2017 03:43:33 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
DIRECTV, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:14-CV-01256-SLD-JEH

CHRISTINA PRESTON,
STEPHANIE KARONIS, and WILD
BERRIES GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Plaintiff DirecTV, LLC
(“DirecTV”), ECF No. 44, as well as a Motion to Strike Response to Motion, ECF No. 61,
against Defendants Wild Berries Group, LLC (“Wild Berries”), and Stephanie Karonis. For the
following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
DirecTV alleged in its Complaint, ECF No. 1, filed on June 26, 2014, that Wild Berries
Restaurant used DirecTV’s residential satellite TV services without authorization from DirecTV
and in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). Compl. 4–5. After Defendants failed to respond to the
summons and complaint, the Court entered a default against Wild Berries and Karonis on
November 13, 2014.1 Entry of Default, ECF No. 15. DirecTV moved for default judgment on
November 28, 2014, ECF No. 16, and the Court granted the motion in part on July 8, 2015. ECF
No. 18. DirecTV sought statutory damages as well as costs and attorney’s fees. Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3), the Court awarded $1,000 in statutory damages and $3,877.57 in attorney’s

1

Christina Preston originally was listed as a defendant in the case, but after repeated failed attempts to serve her
with the Summons and Complaint, DirecTV dismissed her from its Complaint. Notice Partial Dismissal, ECF No.
13.

1

fees and costs against Wild Berries, after finding that Karonis was not liable for a statutory
violation. Id. at 7–10.
In the course of attempts to collect on the judgment, DirecTV issued citations to discover
assets to Wild Berries, Wild Berry Three, Inc., and Stephanie Karonis. See Citations to Discover
Assets, ECF Nos. 24, 28. Neither Karonis nor any representative of Wild Berries appeared at the
Court’s hearing on the matter, Feb. 18, 2016 Minute Entry, and after the parties to whom
citations were directed failed to produce any responsive documents, DirecTV moved to compel
compliance with the citation proceedings. See Mot. Compel, ECF No. 41. In the Motion to
Compel, DirecTV recounted communications it had with Stephanie and Denise Karonis and
Christina Preston regarding the requests for information in the citations, and expressed its belief
that the Karonises, Preston, and/or Wild Berries, LLC had operated a restaurant named “Wild
Berries Restaurant” in Normal, IL. Mot. Compel 2–3. The Magistrate Judge ordered Stephanie
Karonis, Denise Karonis, and Christina Preston, as corporate representatives of Wild Berries, to
comply with the citation and to produce responsive documents, ECF No. 43, which they did not
do. DirecTV then moved to recover attorney’s fees incurred by counsel in the course of the
citation proceedings. Petition Att’y Fees, ECF No. 44.
At the Magistrate Judge’s direction, DirecTV provided itemized documentation of the
fees and costs incurred, claiming an additional $8,925 in attorney’s fees. Id. at 5. Additionally,
the motion listed $161.74 in total costs for service of subpoenas and citations. Id. The
Magistrate Judge initially granted the motion, but later correctly determined that he lacked
jurisdiction to do so, and vacated the order, granting the Defendants’ motion to reconsider. Oct.
11, 2016 Minute Entry. He then referred the motion to this Court for disposition. The Petition
for Attorney’s Fees is now before the Court.

2

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 directs courts to conduct the execution of a money
judgment, as well as proceedings supplementary to the execution of that judgment, in accordance
with state law, though “a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
69(a)(1). The statute providing DirecTV’s original cause of action, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e), states
that the Court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to an
aggrieved party who prevails.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); however, it does not address the
proper procedure for enforcing a judgment awarded under the statute. Therefore, the application
of Illinois state law appropriately governs DirecTV’s attempts to satisfy the judgment. Star Ins.
Co. v. Risk Mktg. Grp. Inc., 561 F.3d 656, 661–62 (7th Cir. 2009).
In Illinois, a collection proceeding, commenced by service of a citation on the party
against whom it is brought, may be instigated “against the judgment debtor or any third party the
judgment creditor believes has property of or is indebted to the judgment debtor.” Ill. Sup. Ct. R.
277(a). One such proceeding is a citation to discover assets, a tool by which a judgment creditor
may “‘discover assets or income of the debtor not exempt from the enforcement of the judgment’
and . . . ‘compel [ ] the application of non-exempt assets or income discovered toward the
payment of the amount due under the judgment.’” Shales v. T. Manning Concrete, Inc., 847 F.
Supp. 2d 1102, 1111 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2–1402(a)).
The citation may require that parties produce documents, books, or records concerning
the property of the debtor, Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 277(c), which the magistrate judge ordered here. See
Order on Mot. Compel, ECF No. 43. Failure to comply with an order of the court in a
supplementary proceeding provides the basis for punishment by the Court. Ill. Sup. Ct. R.
277(h). Defendant Stephanie Karonis, and third parties Denise Karonis and Christina Preston,

3

repeatedly failed to respond to the citations to discover assets on behalf of Wild Berries, despite
the Court’s order. Due to the Defendants’ and the third parties’ failure to follow Court orders,
failure to appear at scheduled hearings, and because their non-responsiveness has prolonged,
needlessly, this litigation, the Court will award attorney’s fees to DirecTV for the efforts it has
expended to collect the judgment. See Star Ins. Co., 561 F.3d at 663 (acknowledging the broad
discretion of the district court to fashion a punishment when a third party violated a court order
in a supplementary proceeding to enforce judgment).
Attorney’s fees are calculated using a “lodestar” method that allows a Court to award
“the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation, multiplied by a reasonable hourly
rate.” Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). In a petition to
seek attorney’s fees, the fee applicant must produce “satisfactory evidence” that his rates are
reasonably derived from the market rates for similar work done by attorneys in the community.
Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 647 (7th Cir. 2011). If the fee applicant fails
to present such evidence, “the district court has the authority to make its own determination of a
reasonable rate.” Id. at 640.
In its Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, DirecTV itemized 29.75 hours of time spent
pursuing post-judgment enforcement.2 Petition Att’y Fees 5. The accrued hours include the time
spent preparing the Citations to Discover Assets and litigating the Motion to Compel, stemming

2

The Court notes the Seventh Circuit’s concern that the hours “expended on [a] fee request” must “bear a rational
relation to the number of hours spent litigating the merits of the case.” Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175
F.3d 544, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff spent only 20.19 hours litigating the merits of this case up to the entry
of default judgment, Att’y Aff. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. Default J. 9, ECF No. 16–6, and Plaintiff’s counsel now claims to
have accrued 29.75 hours of post-judgment work, requesting almost $9,000 in attorney’s fees to litigate the
enforcement of a $1,000 statutory judgment. Though it is Plaintiff’s prerogative to pursue enforcement of the
judgment as it pleases, such lopsided expenditure of attorney time is not considered favorably by the Seventh
Circuit.

4

from the failure of the judgment debtor and the third-party representatives to respond to the
Court’s directives or otherwise resolve the dispute. DirecTV asserted that attorneys’ labor on
these fairly straightforward jobs should be compensated at $300 an hour. Id. at 3. The total
attorney’s fees calculated by DirecTV for post-judgment enforcement proceedings is $8,925. Id.
DirecTV has provided no fee-related evidence other than the conclusory statement that
it is “familiar with the reasonable rates” of attorneys doing similar work in the geographic area,
Petition Att’y Fees 3, and that the associate billing rate for such work is $300 per hour. See
Pickett, 664 F.3d at 647 (noting that appropriately persuasive evidence in an attorney’s fees
determination includes records of prior fee awards or “third party affidavits that attest to the
billing rates of comparable attorneys”). In its previous order awarding attorney’s fees in this
case, the Court carefully analyzed fee awards in the Central District of Illinois to settle on
appropriate rates for cases of similar complexity, determining that it would award $300 for
partner work, $200 for associate work, and $75 for paralegal work. See Jul. 8, 2015 Order 9–10.
The Court sees no reason to depart from the previous finding that the appropriate billing rate for
associate work on a case of this level of complexity is $200.00. Using the lodestar method, the
Court awards attorney’s fees totaling $5,950 plus $161.74 in costs. Defendant Wild Berries
Group, LLC, and its corporate representatives Stephanie Karonis, Christina Preston, and Denise
Karonis, are jointly and severally responsible for compensating DirecTV for fees and costs
totaling $6,111.74.
Additionally, DirecTV moves to strike the response filed by the Third Party Citation
Respondents, ECF No. 61. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2) states that “[a]ny parties opposing a motion”
must file a response within fourteen days after service of the motion, and in the case of untimely
response, the Court “may rule without further notice to the parties.” CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(2). The

5

Third Party Citation Respondents filed their response months after DirecTV filed its motion for
attorney’s fees and after responses were due, and provided no appropriate reason for the
untimeliness. The Court grants DirecTV’s Motion to Strike the Response to the Motion for
Attorney Fees and Costs, ECF No. 61.
CONCLUSION
The Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, ECF No. 44, is granted. The Court finds it
reasonable to award $5,950 in attorney’s fees plus $161.74 in costs, totaling $6,111.74.
DirecTV’s Motion to Strike the Response to the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, ECF No.
61, is granted. The clerk is directed to strike the Response to the Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs, ECF No. 60.
Entered May 18, 2017.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6