Reflex Media, Inc. et al v. Richard Easton Limited et al

Filing 66

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum of Attorneys Fees (ECF No. 63 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must make payment to Plaintiffs in the following amount within 30 days of the date of this Order unless an objection is filed: $6,727.00 in attorneys fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 8/2/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KF)

Case 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY Document 66 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6

REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and CLOVER 8
INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD., a Singapore
corporation,

9
10
11
12

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

7
8

Case No. 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY

v.
RICHARD EASTON LIMITED, a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a www.FirstDateClub.com;
RICHARD EASTON, an individual; MARIA
JOSE DIAZ, an individual; NELIDA TEJEDA
ALVAREZ, an individual; JORGE OSBALDO
RODRIGUEZ, an individual, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

13
14

On July 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs Reflex Media, Inc. and Clover8 Investments

15

PTE’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 61. The Court’s Order included an award of reasonable

16

attorney’s fees and costs. Id. Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum in support of the award of fees on

17

July 20, 2022. ECF No. 63. Plaintiffs have no costs. Id. The due date set by the Court for a response

18

to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum was July 27, 2022. No response was filed.

19

I.

Discussion

20

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has adopted the hybrid lodestar/multiplier

21

approach, used by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), as the proper

22

method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees due in most actions. The lodestar/multiplier

23

approach has two parts. First, the court determines the lodestar amount by multiplying the number

24

of hours reasonably expended on a motion by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. at 433. To get to this

25

calculation, the party seeking an award of fees must submit evidence supporting the hours worked

26

and the rates claimed. Id. The district court will then, generally, exclude from the lodestar amount

27

hours that are not reasonably expended because they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise

28

unnecessary.” Id. at 434. Second, after calculating the total amount requested, the court may adjust
1

Case 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY Document 66 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 3

1

the lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” based on factors not subsumed in the initial

2

calculation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898–901 (1984) (reversing upward multiplier based on

3

factors subsumed in the lodestar determination); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n.9 (noting that courts

4

may look at “results obtained” and other factors but should consider that many of these factors are

5

subsumed in the lodestar calculation).

6

A.

The Hourly Rate Charged.

7

The court determines a reasonable hourly rate by reference to the “prevailing market rates in

8

the relevant community” for an attorney of similar experience, skill, and reputation. Gonzalez v.

9

City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). The relevant community

10

generally is “the forum in which the district court sits.” Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608

11

F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “For the Las Vegas market, this court has

12

regularly awarded fees where the hourly rates at issue were between $250 and $400.” Scott v. Smith's

13

Food and Drug Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-303-JCM-VCF, 2020 WL 343642, at *2 (D. Nev.

14

Jan. 21, 2020) (compiling cases). The Memorandum filed by Plaintiffs explains that Isaac Eddington

15

and Joseph Schaeffer drafted the motion to compel and reply. These attorneys were supervised by

16

Mark Smith, but his time is not included in the time for which an award of fees is sought. Messrs.

17

Schaeffer and Eddington have been practicing for 10 and 22 years respectively. Mr. Schaeffer bills

18

at $350 per hour, while Mr. Eddington bills at $455 per hour. These rates are reasonable for the Las

19

Vegas market particularly because of the nature of this case, which involves intellectual property.

20

B.

The Amount of Time Spent.

21

The Court also finds the amount of time spent on the Motion to Compel is reasonable.

22

“District courts possess the necessary discretion to adjust the amounts awarded to address excessive

23

and unnecessary effort expended in a manner not justified by the case.” Ballen v. City of Redmond,

24

466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). This includes “time spent reviewing work of other attorneys as

25

duplicative” (Melancon v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00212-RCJ-RJJ, 2010

26

WL 11639687, at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 26, 2010)), as well as entries on time reports that fails “to

27

delineate what work was performed in each entry” and thus appear duplicative. American General

28

Life Ins. Co. v. Futrell, Case No. 2:11-cv-00977-PMP-CWH, 2012 WL 4962997, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct.
2

Case 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY Document 66 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 3

1

16, 2012). Ultimately, it is always the moving party’s burden to establish that the fees sought are

2

reasonable. Soule v P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02239-GMN-GWF, 2019

3

WL 3416667, at *1 (D. Nev. July 26, 2019) (citation omitted). The amount of time spent for which

4

reimbursement is requested in this case totals 16.1 hours. A review of the billing records demonstrate

5

the time was spent engaged in reasonable, non-duplicative, and necessary work.

6

II.

7
8
9
10
11

Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum of Attorneys’ Fees (ECF

No. 63) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must make payment to Plaintiffs in the
following amount within 30 days of the date of this Order unless an objection is filed:
$6,727.00 in attorney’s fees.

12
13

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2022.

14
15
16

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3