G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22-cv-1059-JAM-KJN LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EVERETT HUNTER, et al., COSTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) Defendants.
Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) obtained default judgment in this action. Default Judgment Order, ECF No. 36. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot., ECF No. 38. Since the defendants in this action have not appeared, the motion is unopposed. See generally, Dkt. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.1 /// 1This matter is determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). A. Factual Background Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on November 8, 2022, against multiple defendants for the allegedly unlawful broadcast of a sporting event in which Plaintiff possessed the exclusive right to distribute. See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 17. The FAC asserts violations of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, among other claims. Id. Defendants Everett Hunter and Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC failed to file a responsive pleading to the FAC, see Dkt., and the Clerk of Court entered default as to those defendants on December 23, 2022. Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 27. The only remaining defendant, Tommy Barksdale, was later dismissed without prejudice. Minute Order, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff then moved for default judgment. Plf.’s Mot. for Default Judgment, ECF No. 31. The Magistrate Judge found and recommended that default judgment be entered and that Plaintiff be awarded damages in the sum of $6,900.00. Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 34. This Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full and ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for costs and fees within 14 days. Default Judgment Order, ECF No. 36. Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion, seeking $12,818.40 in fees and $2,338.47 in costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot. at 7. /// /// /// B. Legal Standard An aggrieved party that prevails under the Federal Communications Act is entitled to recover “full costs,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). A “person aggrieved” includes a party “with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming . . . .” Id. at § 605(d)(6). Because default judgment has been entered as to this claim, and based on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff necessarily qualifies as an aggrieved party who prevailed and may thus recover “full costs” under section 605. “Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district court must then determine what fees are reasonable.” Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 2016)). C. Analysis Plaintiff seeks $12,818.40 in attorneys’ fees and $2,338.47 in costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot. at 1, 7. 1. Attorneys’ Fees “[D]istrict courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the lodestar method to determine whether a fee request is reasonable under Section 605.” G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No. 1:20-CV-1736 JLT SAB, 2022 WL 348165 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (collecting cases); see also Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). The lodestar is calculated by “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099. The Court may also modify “the lodestar figure, upward or downward, based on factors not subsumed in the lodestar figure.” Id. a. Reasonable Hourly Rates The Court must determine a reasonable hourly rate considering the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees and should be guided by the prevailing rate in the forum community for similar work performed by comparable attorneys. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, Mr. Riley asserts his current billable rate is $600.00 per hour and submits a declaration in support thereof, but he acknowledges that $350.00 per hour has previously been found reasonable. Mot. at 5; Declaration of Thomas P. Riley (“Riley Declaration”), ECF No. 38-1 at ¶ 6. Indeed, other courts in this District have found an hourly rate between $350.00 and $375.00 to be reasonable as to Mr. Riley. See J & J Sports Prods. Inc. v. Cervantes, No. 116CV00485DADJLT, 2019 WL 935387 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) ($375.00); G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Barajas-Quijada, No. 1:19-CV-1259 AWI JLT, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (same); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barajas, No. 115CV01354DADJLT, 2017 WL 469343 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017) ($350.00); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (same). Given Mr. Riley’s skill, experience, and the prevailing rate for similar legal work in the Eastern District, the Court finds an hourly rate of $375.00 to be reasonable and consistent with other courts in this District. Plaintiff also seeks to recover $350.00 for every hour billed by an unidentified research attorney. Mot. at 5; Riley Decl. at ¶ 6. Given the minimal information provided about this research attorney, see Riley Decl. at ¶ 3, the Court joins the other courts in this District that previously found an hourly rate of $225.00 to be reasonable. See Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 at *5; Barajas-Quijada, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2. In sum, the Court finds the hourly rates of $375.00 and $225.00 are reasonable as to Mr. Riley and his research attorney, respectively. b. Hours Reasonably Expended The Court must also determine whether the hours expended were reasonable. Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099. “In determining reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended.” Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1210. Courts may reduce the hours expended “where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; [or] if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, No. C 10-04171 SBA, 2013 WL 4428573, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013). Here, the hours expended do not appear excessive or unnecessary, and the total time spent was reasonable for the work completed in this action. Therefore, the Court will not reduce the time billed by both counsel. However, the Court declines to award fees for the time expended by Mr. Riley’s administrative assistant. See Riley Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7; Exh. 1 at 6-10. Tasks that are clerical or duplicative are not compensable. E.g., Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (clerical); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (collecting cases regarding duplicative billings). “[Clerical] tasks include, but are not limited
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, No. 2:22-cv-1059-JAM-KJN LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EVERETT HUNTER, et al., COSTS PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) Defendants.
Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) obtained default judgment in this action. Default Judgment Order, ECF No. 36. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot., ECF No. 38. Since the defendants in this action have not appeared, the motion is unopposed. See generally, Dkt. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.1 /// 1This matter is determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). A. Factual Background Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on November 8, 2022, against multiple defendants for the allegedly unlawful broadcast of a sporting event in which Plaintiff possessed the exclusive right to distribute. See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 17. The FAC asserts violations of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, among other claims. Id. Defendants Everett Hunter and Port City Sports Bar and Grill, LLC failed to file a responsive pleading to the FAC, see Dkt., and the Clerk of Court entered default as to those defendants on December 23, 2022. Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 27. The only remaining defendant, Tommy Barksdale, was later dismissed without prejudice. Minute Order, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff then moved for default judgment. Plf.’s Mot. for Default Judgment, ECF No. 31. The Magistrate Judge found and recommended that default judgment be entered and that Plaintiff be awarded damages in the sum of $6,900.00. Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 34. This Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full and ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for costs and fees within 14 days. Default Judgment Order, ECF No. 36. Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion, seeking $12,818.40 in fees and $2,338.47 in costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot. at 7. /// /// /// B. Legal Standard An aggrieved party that prevails under the Federal Communications Act is entitled to recover “full costs,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). A “person aggrieved” includes a party “with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming . . . .” Id. at § 605(d)(6). Because default judgment has been entered as to this claim, and based on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff necessarily qualifies as an aggrieved party who prevailed and may thus recover “full costs” under section 605. “Once a party is found eligible for fees, the district court must then determine what fees are reasonable.” Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 810 F.3d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 2016)). C. Analysis Plaintiff seeks $12,818.40 in attorneys’ fees and $2,338.47 in costs under 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Mot. at 1, 7. 1. Attorneys’ Fees “[D]istrict courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the lodestar method to determine whether a fee request is reasonable under Section 605.” G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Velasquez, No. 1:20-CV-1736 JLT SAB, 2022 WL 348165 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (collecting cases); see also Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). The lodestar is calculated by “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099. The Court may also modify “the lodestar figure, upward or downward, based on factors not subsumed in the lodestar figure.” Id. a. Reasonable Hourly Rates The Court must determine a reasonable hourly rate considering the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees and should be guided by the prevailing rate in the forum community for similar work performed by comparable attorneys. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, Mr. Riley asserts his current billable rate is $600.00 per hour and submits a declaration in support thereof, but he acknowledges that $350.00 per hour has previously been found reasonable. Mot. at 5; Declaration of Thomas P. Riley (“Riley Declaration”), ECF No. 38-1 at ¶ 6. Indeed, other courts in this District have found an hourly rate between $350.00 and $375.00 to be reasonable as to Mr. Riley. See J & J Sports Prods. Inc. v. Cervantes, No. 116CV00485DADJLT, 2019 WL 935387 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) ($375.00); G&G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Barajas-Quijada, No. 1:19-CV-1259 AWI JLT, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (same); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barajas, No. 115CV01354DADJLT, 2017 WL 469343 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017) ($350.00); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (same). Given Mr. Riley’s skill, experience, and the prevailing rate for similar legal work in the Eastern District, the Court finds an hourly rate of $375.00 to be reasonable and consistent with other courts in this District. Plaintiff also seeks to recover $350.00 for every hour billed by an unidentified research attorney. Mot. at 5; Riley Decl. at ¶ 6. Given the minimal information provided about this research attorney, see Riley Decl. at ¶ 3, the Court joins the other courts in this District that previously found an hourly rate of $225.00 to be reasonable. See Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 at *5; Barajas-Quijada, 2020 WL 1640005 at *2. In sum, the Court finds the hourly rates of $375.00 and $225.00 are reasonable as to Mr. Riley and his research attorney, respectively. b. Hours Reasonably Expended The Court must also determine whether the hours expended were reasonable. Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099. “In determining reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended.” Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1210. Courts may reduce the hours expended “where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; [or] if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, No. C 10-04171 SBA, 2013 WL 4428573, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013). Here, the hours expended do not appear excessive or unnecessary, and the total time spent was reasonable for the work completed in this action. Therefore, the Court will not reduce the time billed by both counsel. However, the Court declines to award fees for the time expended by Mr. Riley’s administrative assistant. See Riley Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7; Exh. 1 at 6-10. Tasks that are clerical or duplicative are not compensable. E.g., Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (clerical); Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (collecting cases regarding duplicative billings). “[Clerical] tasks include, but are not limited to: creating indexes for a binder; filing emails, memoranda, and other correspondence; updating the case calendar with new dates; copying, scanning, and faxing documents; and filing or serving documents.” Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2016 WL 3648949, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) (citing Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 561 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2008)). Here, many of the administrative assistant’s entries are duplicative of Mr. Riley’s entries. See generally Exh. 1 to Mot. Other entries are clerical or block-billed with clerical tasks thus preventing the Court from determining how much time within each entry was spent on compensable tasks, if any. E.g., Exh. 1 at 6 (2/10/22, “Preparation, Filing, and Service of Third Demand letter to Chantille Marie Clemons”). Although document preparation may be a compensable task, the billable descriptions here are ambiguous and do not sufficiently support that non- clerical skills were required. See, e.g., Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9 (1/15/2024, “Preparation of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Bill”). Therefore, the Court declines to award the administrative assistant’s fees given the clerical and duplicative nature of the tasks billed. c. Lack of Contemporaneous Billing System A contemporaneous billing system is not necessary to recover attorneys’ fees, but it is preferred. Fischer v. SJB- P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). Mr. Riley does not utilize a contemporaneous billing system. Riley Decl. at ¶ 7. Instead, the hours are reconstructed by reviewing the file and notes at some later time. Id. Courts in this District have found the lack of contemporaneous billing to be less reliable and “have reduced the fee award where the time requested for certain tasks appeared to be unnecessary, excessive, or unreasonable.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albright, No. CIV. 2:11-2260 WBS, 2013 WL 4094403 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) (collecting cases); Cervantes, 2019 WL 935387 at *4. Here, however, the Court does not find the requested time to be unnecessary, excessive, or unreasonable such that a reduction is warranted despite the lack of a contemporaneous billing system. d. Lodestar Amount After the rate and hour adjustments, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 5.05 hours at $375.00 per hour for Mr. Riley and 24.00 hours at $225.00 per hour for the unidentified research attorney, for a total sum of $7,293.75 in attorneys’ fees. 2. Costs Plaintiff is also entitled to recover “full costs” under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Nevertheless, there is a limit as to what costs are compensable, and sufficient documentation must be provided to support that the costs were reasonable. Here, Plaintiff seeks $2,338.47 in costs, which consists of $402.00 for the Court’s filing fee, $929.60 for service of process fees, $710.00 in investigative expenses, and $296.87 in courier charges. Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9; Exh. 2 to Mot.; Exh. 3 to Mot. Filing and service of process fees are compensable, e.g., Velasquez, No. 1:20-CV-1736 JLT SAB, 2022 WL 348165 at *7, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover those costs based on the record and documents provided. See Dkt. No. 1 (filing fee); Exh. 3 to Mot. (service of process fees). However, for the reasons stated below, the Court declines to award Plaintiff investigative and courier costs. Purely investigative costs are generally not recoverable, see Koppinger v. Cullen-Schiltz & Assocs., 513 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1975), and many courts in this Circuit have refused to award pre-litigation investigative costs under section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). E.g., Velasquez, 2022 WL 348165 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (collecting cases); but see J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Pagliaro, No. 1:12-CV-1507-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 7140605 at *2 (granting investigative costs without expressly identifying them in its order or discussing their propriety). Even if the Court were to hold that purely investigative expenses are compensable under section 605, the documentation provided here is insufficient to support that the charge was reasonable. G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Parker, 2021 WL 164998, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2021) (declining to “award investigator fees when documented by an invoice containing nothing more than an amount without even detailing the investigative services provided or qualifications of the investigator.”); G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. LA Placita RM Rest. Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01089- DAD-DB, 2023 WL 8933585 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2023). Mr. Riley opines that this cost was reasonable, Riley Declaration at ¶ 9, but the only documentation Plaintiff submits is an invoice generated not by the investigative company but by the Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley. See Exh. 2 to Mot. at 12. Critically, however, the qualifications of the investigator and details of the investigation are omitted. See generally Mot.; Riley Decl. ¶ 9. Based on this information, the Court cannot conclude whether this cost is reasonable, even assuming investigative costs are compensable. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Barajas, No. 115CV01354DADJTL, 2016 WL 2930549 at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2016). The same is true for the courier charges Plaintiff seeks to recover. The only documentation Plaintiff provides is an itemization of courier expenses generated by the Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley; Plaintiff does not include receipts for the courier expenses incurred. See Exh. 1 to Mot. at 9. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has not provided sufficient documentation to support an award of courier costs. E.g., Barajas, 2016 WL 2930549 at *3 (refusing to award courier charges when no documentation was provided even though courier fees are recoverable under § 605); G & G Closed Cir. Events, LLC v. Aguilar, No. 18CV465 JM (BGS), 2018 WL 6445883 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (same). In sum, Plaintiff is entitled to $402.00 in filing fees and $929.60 in service of process fees for total sum of $1,331.60 in costs. All other requests for costs are denied. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 47 U.S.C. section ee mE NII RIDER EEN III IEE IERIE OE II ED eee
605(e) (3) (B) (111). Plaintiff is awarded $7,293.75 in attorneys’ fees and $1,331.60 in costs, for a total sum of $8,625.35. Dated: March 26, 2024
A Ts JOHN A. MENDEZ SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10