1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22-cv-01089-DAD-DB LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 14 COSTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 605 LA PLACITA RM RESTAURANT INC., 15 et al., (Doc. No. 17) 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and 19 costs following the entry of default judgment against defendants. (Doc. No. 17.) On October 12, 20 2023, plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 19.) 21 For the reasons explained below, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion, in part. 23 On June 24, 2022, plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, filed this action against 24 defendants La Placita RM Restaurant LLC and its officers, Maria Garin and Rafael Zepeda, 25 alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq. and other laws in connection with defendants’ 26 showing in their establishment a pay per view boxing match telecast without purchasing the 27 appropriate license to do so. (Doc. No. 1.) Because none of the defendants filed an answer, 28 ///// 1 responsive pleadings, or otherwise appeared in this action, default was entered by the Clerk of the 2 Court against defendants on September 2, 2022. (Doc. No. 10.) 3 On November 16, 2022, plaintiff file a motion for default judgment, seeking “$5,200 in 4 statutory damages and $25,000 in enhanced statutory damages, for a total award under § 605 of 5 $30,200” and “$1,300 in conversion damages.” (Doc. No. 11-1 at 15, 22.) On August 8, 2023, 6 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 7 plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted, but that amount of the award be $3,000 in 8 statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, with no award of either enhanced damages or damages 9 on plaintiff’s conversion claim. (Doc. No. 14.) On September 11, 2023, the undersigned adopted 10 those findings and recommendations and granted default judgment in favor of plaintiff and 11 against defendants in the amount of $3,000.00. (Doc. No. 16 at 4.) Plaintiff was also directed to 12 file any motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 and costs no later than fourteen 13 days from the entry of judgment. (Id.) 14 On September 22, 2023, plaintiff timely filed the pending motion for attorneys’ fees and 15 costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. (Doc. No. 17.) Therein, plaintiff “requests that the court order 16 defendants to pay costs in the amount of $1,428.70 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of 17 $7,106.90, consisting of 3.5 hours of work at $600.00 per hour by plaintiff’s counsel Thomas P. 18 Riley, Esq. (“Riley”), 12.5 hours of work performed by an unidentified “research attorney” at 19 $325.00 per hour, and 7.87 hours of work by an unidentified “administrative assistant” at $120.00 20 per hour. (Doc. Nos. 17 at 8; 17-1 at 8.) 22 Under the Communications Act, an aggrieved party who prevails on a claim brought 23 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 is entitled to the recovery of “full costs” and “reasonable attorneys’ 24 fees.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Relevant here, the Act defines an aggrieved party as “any 25 person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including 26 wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). 27 Here, plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees because it is an 28 aggrieved party who prevailed on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim when the court granted plaintiff’s 1 motion for default judgment and entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. See Zarazua, 2021 WL 2 3290425, at *2 (“Because the court has granted default judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the 3 Communications Act claim, plaintiff is eligible to request reasonable attorneys’ fees under 4 § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).”); G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No. 1:20-cv-1736 JLT SAB, 5 2022 WL 348165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (“By granting default judgment, the court 6 determined plaintiff was aggrieved under the Communications Act. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to 7 an award of fees and costs under Section 605.”). 8 A. Attorneys’ Fees 9 “Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district court must then determine what fees 10 are reasonable.” Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Klein 11 v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 2016)). “To determine attorneys’ fees under 12 § 605, courts use the loadstar method,” in which “courts calculate the number of hours reasonably 13 expended on the litigation and then multiply that number by a reasonable hourly rate.” G & G 14 Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Zarazua, No. 20-cv-1944-MMA-WVG, 2021 WL 3290425, at *1 15 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an 16 award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 17 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The “prevailing market rates in the relevant community” set the 18 reasonable hourly rate for purposes of computing the lodestar amount. Gonzalez v. City of 19 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2013). “Generally, when determining a reasonable 20 hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Id. (citation 21 omitted). 22 1. Hours Expended 23 In support of the pending motion, plaintiff filed a declaration from its counsel, attorney 24 Riley, including a spreadsheet of his billing records which are “reconstructed by way of a 25 thorough review of the files themselves” based on “contemporaneous notes,” because attorney 26 Riley does not use billing software. (Doc. No. 17-1 at 3, 6–9.) 27 “Absent the submission of detailed contemporaneous time records justifying the hours 28 claimed to have been expended on this case, the court gives little weight to the figures provided 1 by plaintiff.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, No. 10-cv-04171-SBA, 2013 WL 4428573, at 2 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. White, No. 11-cv-01331- 3 CW-JSC, 2011 WL 6749061, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011) (“Because the billing records were 4 not created contemporaneously, the Court finds that they are inherently less reliable.”); Joe Hand 5 Promotions, Inc. v. Be, No. 11-cv-01333-LHK, 2011 WL 5105375, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 6 2011) (noting that without actual billing records, the court gives “little weight” to figures 7 “reconstructing” billable time).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22-cv-01089-DAD-DB LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 14 COSTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 605 LA PLACITA RM RESTAURANT INC., 15 et al., (Doc. No. 17) 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and 19 costs following the entry of default judgment against defendants. (Doc. No. 17.) On October 12, 20 2023, plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission to be decided on the papers. (Doc. No. 19.) 21 For the reasons explained below, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion, in part. 23 On June 24, 2022, plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, filed this action against 24 defendants La Placita RM Restaurant LLC and its officers, Maria Garin and Rafael Zepeda, 25 alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq. and other laws in connection with defendants’ 26 showing in their establishment a pay per view boxing match telecast without purchasing the 27 appropriate license to do so. (Doc. No. 1.) Because none of the defendants filed an answer, 28 ///// 1 responsive pleadings, or otherwise appeared in this action, default was entered by the Clerk of the 2 Court against defendants on September 2, 2022. (Doc. No. 10.) 3 On November 16, 2022, plaintiff file a motion for default judgment, seeking “$5,200 in 4 statutory damages and $25,000 in enhanced statutory damages, for a total award under § 605 of 5 $30,200” and “$1,300 in conversion damages.” (Doc. No. 11-1 at 15, 22.) On August 8, 2023, 6 the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 7 plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted, but that amount of the award be $3,000 in 8 statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605, with no award of either enhanced damages or damages 9 on plaintiff’s conversion claim. (Doc. No. 14.) On September 11, 2023, the undersigned adopted 10 those findings and recommendations and granted default judgment in favor of plaintiff and 11 against defendants in the amount of $3,000.00. (Doc. No. 16 at 4.) Plaintiff was also directed to 12 file any motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 and costs no later than fourteen 13 days from the entry of judgment. (Id.) 14 On September 22, 2023, plaintiff timely filed the pending motion for attorneys’ fees and 15 costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. (Doc. No. 17.) Therein, plaintiff “requests that the court order 16 defendants to pay costs in the amount of $1,428.70 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of 17 $7,106.90, consisting of 3.5 hours of work at $600.00 per hour by plaintiff’s counsel Thomas P. 18 Riley, Esq. (“Riley”), 12.5 hours of work performed by an unidentified “research attorney” at 19 $325.00 per hour, and 7.87 hours of work by an unidentified “administrative assistant” at $120.00 20 per hour. (Doc. Nos. 17 at 8; 17-1 at 8.) 22 Under the Communications Act, an aggrieved party who prevails on a claim brought 23 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 is entitled to the recovery of “full costs” and “reasonable attorneys’ 24 fees.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Relevant here, the Act defines an aggrieved party as “any 25 person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including 26 wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6). 27 Here, plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees because it is an 28 aggrieved party who prevailed on its 47 U.S.C. § 605 claim when the court granted plaintiff’s 1 motion for default judgment and entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. See Zarazua, 2021 WL 2 3290425, at *2 (“Because the court has granted default judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the 3 Communications Act claim, plaintiff is eligible to request reasonable attorneys’ fees under 4 § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).”); G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No. 1:20-cv-1736 JLT SAB, 5 2022 WL 348165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (“By granting default judgment, the court 6 determined plaintiff was aggrieved under the Communications Act. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to 7 an award of fees and costs under Section 605.”). 8 A. Attorneys’ Fees 9 “Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district court must then determine what fees 10 are reasonable.” Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Klein 11 v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 2016)). “To determine attorneys’ fees under 12 § 605, courts use the loadstar method,” in which “courts calculate the number of hours reasonably 13 expended on the litigation and then multiply that number by a reasonable hourly rate.” G & G 14 Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Zarazua, No. 20-cv-1944-MMA-WVG, 2021 WL 3290425, at *1 15 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an 16 award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 17 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The “prevailing market rates in the relevant community” set the 18 reasonable hourly rate for purposes of computing the lodestar amount. Gonzalez v. City of 19 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2013). “Generally, when determining a reasonable 20 hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Id. (citation 21 omitted). 22 1. Hours Expended 23 In support of the pending motion, plaintiff filed a declaration from its counsel, attorney 24 Riley, including a spreadsheet of his billing records which are “reconstructed by way of a 25 thorough review of the files themselves” based on “contemporaneous notes,” because attorney 26 Riley does not use billing software. (Doc. No. 17-1 at 3, 6–9.) 27 “Absent the submission of detailed contemporaneous time records justifying the hours 28 claimed to have been expended on this case, the court gives little weight to the figures provided 1 by plaintiff.” J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, No. 10-cv-04171-SBA, 2013 WL 4428573, at 2 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. White, No. 11-cv-01331- 3 CW-JSC, 2011 WL 6749061, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011) (“Because the billing records were 4 not created contemporaneously, the Court finds that they are inherently less reliable.”); Joe Hand 5 Promotions, Inc. v. Be, No. 11-cv-01333-LHK, 2011 WL 5105375, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 6 2011) (noting that without actual billing records, the court gives “little weight” to figures 7 “reconstructing” billable time). 8 Although the reconstructed billing records here are inherently less reliable, the amount of 9 attorney time spent on this case certainly does not appear to be “unnecessary, excessive, or 10 unreasonable.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albright, No. 2:11-cv-02260-WBS, 2013 WL 11 4094403, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013). In total, attorney Riley and the research attorney spent 12 16 hours on this matter, which is reasonable in light of the relatively short length of this case, 13 which has spanned approximately eighteen months, and the fact that this litigation involved 14 minimal substantive motion practice, including plaintiff’s filing of a motion for default judgment 15 and objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations thereon. Given the 16 procedural history of this case, the court finds the amount of attorney time expended on this 17 matter to be reasonable. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barajas, No. 1:15-cv-01354-DAD-JLT, 18 2017 WL 469343, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017); Albright, 2013 WL 4094403, at *4. 19 Accordingly, the court will award plaintiff attorneys’ fees based on a lodestar calculation that 20 accounts for 3.5 hours spent by attorney Riley and 12.5 hours spent by his research attorney.1 21 2. Hourly Rates 22 As plaintiff acknowledges in the pending motion, judges in this district have declined to 23 award attorneys’ fees based on plaintiff’s counsel’s requested hourly rate of $600, finding instead 24 1 As plaintiff acknowledges in the pending motion, plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for 25 “administrative assistant fees” have repeatedly been denied by this court, and plaintiff’s arguments that such fees should be recoverable as “paralegal tasks” have been squarely rejected. 26 (Doc. No. 17 at 6); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165, at *3–4; Barajas, 2017 WL 469343, at *4. For 27 the same reasons, plaintiff’s request for an award of “administrative assistant fees” incurred in prosecuting this case is likewise denied, regardless of whether the time spent and hourly rate 28 billed for the administrative assistant are reasonable. 1 that $350.00 per hour is a reasonable rate for attorney Riley in this district. (Doc. No. 17 at 5); 2 Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165, at *5 (setting an hourly rate of $350.00 for attorney Riley and 3 noting that “as plaintiff observes, the court awarded the hourly rate of $350.00 to Mr. Riley for 4 work on cases involving violations of the Communications Acts”) (citing J & J Sports Prods. v. 5 Alvarez, No. 2:17-cv-00926-TLN-AC, 2020 WL 3483393, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2020) (noting 6 Mr. Riley was awarded the rate of $350 for actions in this district venued in Fresno and finding 7 “no reason to deviate for the Sacramento [venue]”) report and recommendation adopted sub nom. 8 J&J Sports Prod., Inc. v. Alverez, 2020 WL 4474646 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2020). Similarly, judges 9 in this district have declined to award attorneys’ fees based on attorney Riley’s requested 10 “research attorney” rate of $325 per hour, finding instead that an hourly rate of $225.00 is 11 reasonable. Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165, at *5; G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Barajas- 12 Quijada, No. 1:19-cv-1259-AWI-JLT, 2020 WL 1640005, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020). 13 Accordingly, here too the court finds that $350.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for attorney Riley 14 and $225.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for his research attorney. 15 3. Lodestar Calculation 16 Based on the hours expended and hourly rates found to be reasonable above, the court 17 calculates a lodestar amount of $4,037.50.2 Accordingly, the court will grant in part plaintiff’s 18 motion for an award attorneys’ fees and award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,037.50. 19 B. Costs 20 As noted, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) requires that the court award “full costs . . . to an 21 aggrieved party who prevails.” 22 Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the amount of $1,428.70, which consists of $700.00 in 23 “investigative expense,” $66.70 in courier charges, $402.00 for the complaint filing fee, and 24 $260.00 in service of process fees. (Doc. No. 17-1 at 8.) Only the costs for the filing fee, service 25 ///// 26
27 2 The court arrives at this calculation as follows: 3.5 hours spent by attorney Riley at a rate of $350.00 per hour = $1,225.00 and 12.5 hours spent by the research attorney at a rate of $225 per 28 hour = $2,812.50. Thus, in total, $1,225.00 + $2,812.50 = $4,037.50. 1 of process charges, and investigative expenses are documented.3 Plaintiff has provided no 2 documentation to support the amount sought for courier charges. The costs for courier charges 3 will therefore not be awarded. 4 With respect to the recovery of investigative costs, plaintiff contends that there is a split of 5 authority. (Doc. No. 17 at 6–7.) However, this court and other California district courts have 6 refused to award such pre-filing investigative fees to the prevailing party. See, e.g., Napuri, 2013 7 WL 4428573, at *3; Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165, at *6; Alverez, 2020 WL 3483393, at *2 8 (“Courts in this Circuit routinely decline to award such [pre-suit investigative] costs.”). 9 Moreover, even if such investigative costs were recoverable, plaintiff has not provided the court 10 with sufficient documentation of these expenses or any information as to the qualifications of the 11 investigator who billed these expenses. Plaintiff merely provides an invoice generated by the 12 Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, which has a columns for “photos,” “license,” “video,” and 13 “other.” (Doc. No. 17-1 at 11.) Under the columns for “photos,” “license,” and “video,” the 14 word “yes” is typed; under the column for “video,” the word “no” is typed; and under the column 15 for “other,” the figure of $0.00 is typed. (Id.) This invoice is insufficient to substantiate the 16 claimed expenses. See Barajas-Quijada, 2020 WL 1640005, at *3 (finding a similarly bare 17 invoice from the Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley to be “insufficient to justify an award of 18 costs”); see also Albright, 2013 WL 4094403, at *6 (finding a bare invoice for investigative costs 19 to be insufficient and emphasizing that “no additional information regarding the qualifications of 20 the investigation company or what services it provided, leaving the court with no means of 21 determining if the charge is reasonable”). Accordingly, the court declines to award the requested 22 investigative costs. 23 In sum, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to support its request for 24 costs for the courier charges and investigative expenses. Plaintiff’s request for costs will be 25 ///// 26
27 3 Although plaintiff did not submit a copy of receipt for the complaint filing fee, the docket in this case makes clear that the $402.00 filing fee was paid on June 24, 2022. (See docket, 28 indicating “[f]iling fee $402, receipt number ACAEDC-10296646.”) 1 | granted as to $662.00 for the filing fee and service of process costs, and denied as to all other 2 | claimed costs. 4 For the reasons explained above, 5 1. Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. No. 17) is 6 granted in part as follows: 7 a. The court awards $4,037.50 to plaintiff in attorneys’ fees; and 8 b. The court awards $662.00 to plaintiff in costs; and 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. | Dated: December 26, 2023 Del A. 2, sy 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28