1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2114-GPC-WVG
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 14 Adolfo Alcaraz Castillo, individually and
d/b/a El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food d/b/a 15 JJ’s Island Grindz,
16 Defendant. [ECF No. 14] 17
18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. ECF No. 14. 19 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and awards Plaintiff 20 $3,123.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,819.10 in costs. Further, the Court finds this motion 21 suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 (d)(1) and 22 VACATES the hearing on this matter. 23 Factual and Procedural Background 24 Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events is an international distributor of sports and 25 entertainment programming. In 2019, Plaintiff purchased the exclusive rights for 26 domestic commercial exhibition of the broadcast of the Champion Fight Program in 27 1 which Saul “Canelo” Alvarez faced Sergey Kovalev (hereafter, the “Program”). ECF 2 No. 10-1 at 7. As part of Plaintiff’s contract securing its broadcasting rights, Plaintiff 3 was permitted to enter sub-licensing arrangements with commercial establishments that 4 wished to exhibit the Program to their own clients and patrons. Id. 5 As set forth in the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, 6 the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s Complaint took place on November 2, 2019, the night 7 the Program aired. See ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 8 intercepted and exhibited the fight program without Plaintiff’s authorization at 9 Defendant’s commercial establishment, El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food, a restaurant in 10 Chula Vista, California. ECF No. 10-1 at 7; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24-25. Plaintiff alleged this 11 conduct violated federal and state law, including the Communications Act of 1934, 47 12 U.S.C. §605, et seq. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18-30), the Cable and Television Consumer 13 protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553 (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 31-36), state- 14 law tortious conversion (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 37-40), and California’s Business and 15 Profession’s Code Section § 17200 (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 41-50). 16 On April 9, 2021, the Clerk entered default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 55(a) against Defendant. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff then moved the Court for 18 default judgment against Defendant under Rule 55. ECF No. 10-1. Defendant failed to 19 file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on or before August 13, 2021, or any time before 20 the Court’s ruling on the motion for default judgment. On October 7, 2021, the Court 21 granted Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 12. 22 In the Order granting default judgment, the Court awarded Plaintiff $22,000 in 23 statutory and enhanced damages. ECF No. 12 at 9-10. In awarding Plaintiff damages, 24 the Court noted that it was “prepared to award reasonable attorney fees on Plaintiff’s 25 forthcoming motion,” id. at 9, and directed Plaintiff to file a motion for attorneys’ fees 26 27 1 within two weeks of the October 7 Order, id. at 11. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed 2 the instant motion, requesting attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 14. 3 Discussion 4 a. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees Under 47 U.S.C. § 605 5 Under 47 U.S.C. § 605, any “aggrieved person” is empowered to bring a civil 6 action in federal court against any person who violates the action. 47 U.S.C. 7 §605(e)(3)(A). Section 605 requires the district court to award attorneys’ fees and costs 8 to a party who brings a civil action under the statute and prevails. 47 U.S.C. § 9 605(3)(3)(B)(iii) (“The Court shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding 10 reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.”). The term “aggrieved 11 person” includes “any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by 12 wire or radio.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). 13 The Court finds, as it did in the October 14 Order, that Plaintiff is entitled to an 14 award of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. At the time of the interception 15 by Defendant, Plaintiff had the exclusive nationwide distribution rights for the Program. 16 ECF No. 10-2, Gagliardi Decl. ¶ 3. Because the Court found that Defendant intercepted 17 and exhibited the Program without Plaintiff’s authorization at Defendant’s commercial 18 establishment, El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food, on November 2, 2019, Plaintiff is an 19 “aggrieved person” for the purpose of section 605. See J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. 20 Morales, 2011 WL 6749080, at *3. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to full costs and 21 attorneys’ fees. 22 b. Award of Attorneys’ Fees 23 “The district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award.” 24 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). To calculate the fee award, “the district 25 court must first determine the presumptive lodestar figure by multiplying the number of 26 hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.” Intel Corp. v. 27 1 Terabyte Intern., Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, “the lodestar amount 2 presumably reflects the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and 3 experience of counsel, the quality of the representation, and the results obtained from the 4 litigation.” Id. (citing D’Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 5 1383 (9th Cir. 1990)). There is a strong presumption that the lodestar amount is 6 reasonable. Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000). That 7 presumption may be overcome if there are factors present suggesting the lodestar figure 8 is unreasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34. As Plaintiff notes, the lodestar method has 9 been used to calculate attorneys’ fees under 47 U.S.C. § 605. ECF No. 14, Pl.’s Mot. 10 (citing Directv, Inc. v. Atwal, 2005 WL 1388649 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2005)). 11 i. Reasonable Hourly Rate 12 The Court considers “the experience, skill, and reputation fo the attorney 13 requesting the fees” and is “guided by the rate prevailing in the community for similar 14 work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Schwarz v. 15 Secretary of Health & Human Services, 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2114-GPC-WVG
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 14 Adolfo Alcaraz Castillo, individually and
d/b/a El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food d/b/a 15 JJ’s Island Grindz,
16 Defendant. [ECF No. 14] 17
18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. ECF No. 14. 19 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and awards Plaintiff 20 $3,123.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,819.10 in costs. Further, the Court finds this motion 21 suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 (d)(1) and 22 VACATES the hearing on this matter. 23 Factual and Procedural Background 24 Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events is an international distributor of sports and 25 entertainment programming. In 2019, Plaintiff purchased the exclusive rights for 26 domestic commercial exhibition of the broadcast of the Champion Fight Program in 27 1 which Saul “Canelo” Alvarez faced Sergey Kovalev (hereafter, the “Program”). ECF 2 No. 10-1 at 7. As part of Plaintiff’s contract securing its broadcasting rights, Plaintiff 3 was permitted to enter sub-licensing arrangements with commercial establishments that 4 wished to exhibit the Program to their own clients and patrons. Id. 5 As set forth in the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, 6 the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s Complaint took place on November 2, 2019, the night 7 the Program aired. See ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant 8 intercepted and exhibited the fight program without Plaintiff’s authorization at 9 Defendant’s commercial establishment, El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food, a restaurant in 10 Chula Vista, California. ECF No. 10-1 at 7; ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24-25. Plaintiff alleged this 11 conduct violated federal and state law, including the Communications Act of 1934, 47 12 U.S.C. §605, et seq. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18-30), the Cable and Television Consumer 13 protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553 (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 31-36), state- 14 law tortious conversion (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 37-40), and California’s Business and 15 Profession’s Code Section § 17200 (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 41-50). 16 On April 9, 2021, the Clerk entered default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 55(a) against Defendant. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff then moved the Court for 18 default judgment against Defendant under Rule 55. ECF No. 10-1. Defendant failed to 19 file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on or before August 13, 2021, or any time before 20 the Court’s ruling on the motion for default judgment. On October 7, 2021, the Court 21 granted Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 12. 22 In the Order granting default judgment, the Court awarded Plaintiff $22,000 in 23 statutory and enhanced damages. ECF No. 12 at 9-10. In awarding Plaintiff damages, 24 the Court noted that it was “prepared to award reasonable attorney fees on Plaintiff’s 25 forthcoming motion,” id. at 9, and directed Plaintiff to file a motion for attorneys’ fees 26 27 1 within two weeks of the October 7 Order, id. at 11. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed 2 the instant motion, requesting attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 14. 3 Discussion 4 a. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees Under 47 U.S.C. § 605 5 Under 47 U.S.C. § 605, any “aggrieved person” is empowered to bring a civil 6 action in federal court against any person who violates the action. 47 U.S.C. 7 §605(e)(3)(A). Section 605 requires the district court to award attorneys’ fees and costs 8 to a party who brings a civil action under the statute and prevails. 47 U.S.C. § 9 605(3)(3)(B)(iii) (“The Court shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding 10 reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.”). The term “aggrieved 11 person” includes “any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by 12 wire or radio.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). 13 The Court finds, as it did in the October 14 Order, that Plaintiff is entitled to an 14 award of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. At the time of the interception 15 by Defendant, Plaintiff had the exclusive nationwide distribution rights for the Program. 16 ECF No. 10-2, Gagliardi Decl. ¶ 3. Because the Court found that Defendant intercepted 17 and exhibited the Program without Plaintiff’s authorization at Defendant’s commercial 18 establishment, El Roca Mar Taco & Sea Food, on November 2, 2019, Plaintiff is an 19 “aggrieved person” for the purpose of section 605. See J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. 20 Morales, 2011 WL 6749080, at *3. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to full costs and 21 attorneys’ fees. 22 b. Award of Attorneys’ Fees 23 “The district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award.” 24 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). To calculate the fee award, “the district 25 court must first determine the presumptive lodestar figure by multiplying the number of 26 hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.” Intel Corp. v. 27 1 Terabyte Intern., Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, “the lodestar amount 2 presumably reflects the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and 3 experience of counsel, the quality of the representation, and the results obtained from the 4 litigation.” Id. (citing D’Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 5 1383 (9th Cir. 1990)). There is a strong presumption that the lodestar amount is 6 reasonable. Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000). That 7 presumption may be overcome if there are factors present suggesting the lodestar figure 8 is unreasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34. As Plaintiff notes, the lodestar method has 9 been used to calculate attorneys’ fees under 47 U.S.C. § 605. ECF No. 14, Pl.’s Mot. 10 (citing Directv, Inc. v. Atwal, 2005 WL 1388649 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2005)). 11 i. Reasonable Hourly Rate 12 The Court considers “the experience, skill, and reputation fo the attorney 13 requesting the fees” and is “guided by the rate prevailing in the community for similar 14 work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Schwarz v. 15 Secretary of Health & Human Services, 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). “To inform 16 and assist the court in the exercise of its discretion, the burden is on the fee applicant to 17 produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the 18 requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by 19 lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 20 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). Affidavits of the fee applicant’s counsel regarding the 21 prevailing fees in the community and “rate determinations in other cases” are generally 22 “satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, 23 Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008). 24 In the case before the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Riley charges $550.00 per 25 hour. ECF No. 14-1, Riley Decl. ¶ 6. Mr. Riley’s litigation efforts were supported by a 26 research attorney, whose time is billed at $300.00 per hour, paralegals whose time is 27 1 billed at $200.00 per hour, and administrative assistants whose time is billed at $110.00 2 per hour. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel owns the law firm, which “specializes in the civil 3 prosecution of commercial signal piracy claims on behalf of closed-circuit distributors of 4 major televised sporting events” and the firm has been engaged in such practice since 5 1994. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff’s counsel further attests that “[t]his type of work, practiced by 6 only a handful of attorneys across the United States, requires specialized knowledge of 7 complex legal matters, including commercial broadcast and licensing rights and 8 commercial and residential cable and satellite agreements.” Id. Plaintiff’s counsel has 9 worked with Plaintiff since 2009, and has secured favorable outcomes and attorneys’ fees 10 awards in prior litigation. ECF No. 14-1 ¶ 12; see also ECF No. 14-1 at 22, 24, 28 (Exs. 11 4, 5, 6). 12 ii. Hours Reasonably Expended 13 Mr. Riley’s Declaration details the hours worked by each person who aided in the 14 litigation of Plaintiff’s case. ECF No. 14-1, Riley Decl. at 7-10 (Ex. 1). Further, because 15 Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees to cover the fees charged by the investigators who aided in 16 the litigation, the Declaration also includes copies of the checks paid to the investigators. 17 ECF No. 14-1, Riley Decl. at 12-13 (Ex. 2). 18 Here, counsel for Plaintiff attests that his administrative assistant billed 7.60 hours 19 at $110.00 per hour, totaling $836.00. ECF No. 14-1, Riley Decl., at 9. The firm’s 20 research attorney worked 3.50 hours at $300.00 per hour, totaling $1,050.00. Id. And Mr. 21 Riley worked 2.25 hours at $550.00 per hour, totaling $1,237.50. Id. 22 Considering the tasks performed, the expertise of Mr. Riley and his colleagues, and 23 the delegation of tasks among employees at the firm, the Court finds that the hours 24 worked to secure Plaintiff a favorable result were reasonable. 25 The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and awards Plaintiff $3,123.50 in 26 attorneys’ fees. 27 1 c. Award of Costs 2 As noted above, section 605 directs courts to award recovery of attorneys’ fees and 3 || full costs. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)ii). Here, Plaintiff seeks an award to cover the costs 4 ||expended for the investigators who supported Mr. Riley’s litigation efforts, providing the 5 || affidavits that proved the section 605 violations. ECF No. 14-1 at 7. The investigators 6 || were each paid at a rate of $650.00 per hour, and the fees totaled $1,300.00 for Point 7 || Blank Consulting (for two hours of work), and $650.00 for Taurus Investigations (for one 8 of work). ECF No. 14-1 at 12-13. In other similar cases, courts in this district have 9 || awarded costs to cover investigative fees, and the Court finds no reason to withhold such 10 award here. See ECF No. 14 at 7; G &G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Zarazua, 20- 11 || cv-00988-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 20, 2021); G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. 12 || Paheco, 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2019). Plaintiff's further costs 13 ||include service process fees, and courier charges, totaling $519.10. ECF No. 14-1 at 9. 14 || Overall, the costs requested total $1,819.10. Id. 15 The Court finds that Plaintiff's requests for costs in the amount of $1,819.10 is 16 ||reasonable and GRANTS Plaintiff's request. 17 Conclusion 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion requesting 19 || $3,123.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,819.10 in costs. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: December 6, 2021 <=
23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 20-CV-2114-GPC-WVG