Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FACEBOOK, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-08153-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

10 ENSAR SAHINTURK, Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 37, 38 Defendant. 11

12 13 Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Ensar Sahinturk, 14 alleging cybersquatting and trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 1125(c) and (d), and state law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Court 16 previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and ordered Plaintiffs to submit 17 documentation in support of their request for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 34.) Plaintiffs 18 have since done so (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38), and the Court GRANTS the motion for attorneys’ fees and 19 costs as set forth below. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Entitlement to Fees 22 Under the Lanham Act, “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney 23 fees to the prevailing party.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). An “exceptional” case is “one that stands out 24 from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering 25 both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case 26 was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014); see 27 also SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding 1 “Courts applying the Octane Fitness analysis commonly find that willful infringement, in 2 conjunction with non-participation in litigation, makes a case ‘exceptional.’” ADG Concerns, Inc. 3 v. Tsalevich LLC, No. 18-CV-00818-NC, 2018 WL 4241967, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) 4 (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CV-00818-JSW, 2018 WL 5 6615139 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018). Both factors are present here. As the Court found when 6 awarding statutory damages on Plaintiffs’ cybersquatting claim:

7 [Mr. Sahinturk] scraped data without authorization from publicly- available Instagram user content, used the IG Marks on his clone sites 8 without authorization, monetized those sites by running ads on them, continued his infringing conduct after receiving multiple cease and 9 desist letters, and concealed his identity as the registrant of the domain names. Further, Mr. Sahinturk has failed to defend this action, which 10 evidences an attitude of contempt toward the court or the proceedings. 11 (Dkt. No. 34 at 17.) Because Mr. Sahinturk’s conduct here was exceptional, an award of 12 attorneys’ fees is appropriate. 13 B. Reasonableness of Fees Sought 14 Plaintiffs seek $154,580 in attorneys’ fees for 214 hours of work. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶ 4.) 15 The lodestar method is the appropriate method for evaluating the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ 16 attorneys’ fees; “the lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing 17 party reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate documentation) by a 18 reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer.” In re Bluetooth 19 Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “Only in rare or 20 exceptional cases will an attorney's reasonable expenditure of time on a case not be commensurate 21 with the fees to which he is entitled.” Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th 22 Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original). 23 Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is supported by a declaration from Ann Marie 24 Mortimer, attorney of record for Plaintiffs Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a/ Facebook, Inc.) and 25 Instagram, LLC, and a separate submission which includes counsels’ detailed billing records. 26 (Dkt. Nos. 37-3; 38-1.) According to the Mortimer Declaration, Plaintiffs incurred $430,000 in 27 fixed attorneys’ fees pursuant to their fee arrangement with counsel. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶ 2.) 1 (Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶¶ 2, 4.) However, Plaintiffs have further reduced the fees sought here and 2 limited their request to $154,580 for fees related to: “(1) the initial case strategy and investigation; 3 (2) the motion for alternative service; and (3) the motion for default judgment.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) 4 The Court finds that the number of hours for which Plaintiffs seek fees—214— is 5 reasonable. Plaintiffs both limited the categories of time for which they seek fees and reduced the 6 hours sought within the three categories above. Most notably, while counsel attests that they spent 7 308.6 hours on the motion for default—an extraordinarily high number of hours for an 8 uncontested motion—counsel seeks fees for 161.60 hours, which is in keeping with fees sought 9 and awarded in similar cases. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶ 14.) See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network 10 (Shenzhen) Tech. Co., No. 19CV01167JSTAGT, 2021 WL 5707741, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 11 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-01167-JST, 2021 WL 5707740 (N.D. Cal. 12 Nov. 16, 2021) (finding that 488.2 hours billed was reasonable given “that a considerable amount 13 of work was required to attempt to serve them with process and to move for default judgment.”); 14 ADG Concerns, Inc. v. Tsalevich LLC, No. 18-CV-00818-NC, 2018 WL 4241967, at *14 (N.D. 15 Cal. Aug. 31, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CV-00818-JSW, 2018 WL 16 6615139 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (finding that “214 hours billed is high for a case that did not 17 proceed past default judgment, [but] counsel’s billing spreadsheets account for these hours with 18 what appear to be legitimate efforts at advancing the litigation and advocating for their client.”). 19 The Court also finds that counsel’s hourly rates here are reasonable given the prevailing 20 rates in this District and the attorneys’ experience. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at ¶¶ 7-11.) See Nitsch v. 21 DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., No. 14-CV-04062-LHK, 2017 WL 2423161, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 22 June 5, 2017) (finding that the lead attorneys’ hourly rates of “$870 to $1,200 per hour” were 23 reasonable under the lodestar method as were billing rates of $275 to $750 per hour for less 24 experienced counsel.) 25 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for $154,580 in attorneys’ fees. 26 C. Costs 27 Having prevailed on their dilution and cybersquatting claims, Plaintiffs are also entitled to 1 were for filings fees and for attempting to effect service through the Hague Service Convention, 2 || which required translating case documents. (Dkt. No. 38-1 at 4 15 Gtemizing costs).) Given the 3 nature of the case, specifically the requirements imposed by international service and the Hague 4 || Convention, the Court finds these costs are reasonable, and supported the Mortimer Declaration. 5 || (Dkt. No. 38-1.) 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and 8 costs and awards $154,580 in attorneys’ fees and $13,040 in costs. 9 Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal portions of their detailed billing records is 10 || GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 37.) 11 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 37, 38. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: June 17, 2022

15 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28