G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Carbajal

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

G&G C losed Circuit Events LLC, ) No. CV-20-00838-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Lorena A Carbajal, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendant(s). ) ) 14 )

15 Before the Court is Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s Motion for 16 Attorney Fees and Costs. (Doc. 17). The Court has reviewed the Motion and accompanying 17 exhibits and for the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in 18 part. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging claims 21 under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. (Doc. 1). Defendants failed to respond or 22 otherwise appear. On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of 23 Default. (Doc. 12). The Clerk of Court entered default on September 14, 2020. (Doc. 13). 24 On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment, which this Court 25 granted. (Docs. 14 & 15). In its Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a motion for 26 attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 15 at 4). Plaintiff has done so, seeking $2,520.00 in fees 27 and $660.00 in costs. (Doc. 17 at 4). 28 /// 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Aggrieved parties prevailing under § 605 are entitled to the recovery of “full costs” 3 and “reasonable attorneys’ fees” under § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Parties prevailing on default 4 judgment are still prevailing parties for the purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., 5 G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Garcia, No. CV-19-05134-PHX-SPL, 2020 WL 6 5535758 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2020). 7 “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is 8 the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable 9 hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). This calculation is known as 10 the “lodestar method” and it provides an objective basis on which to make an initial 11 estimate of the value of an attorney’s services. Id. The party requesting the fees must submit 12 evidence supporting the reasonableness of the hours worked and the rates claimed. Id. 13 “Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award 14 accordingly.” Id. 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 Here, as stated, Plaintiff prevailed by obtaining a default judgment. Plaintiff submits 17 the affidavit of its counsel, Thomas P. Riley, Esq., in support of its request for attorneys’ 18 fees and costs. (Doc. 17-2). Plaintiff also submits attorney time and task records reflecting 19 6.4 total billable hours for the services of attorney Riley (representing 2.4 hours of work at 20 $550 per hour) and an unnamed research attorney (representing 4 hours at $300 per hour) 21 for a total of $2,520.00. (Doc. 17-2 at 9). Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for non-taxable 22 costs in the amount of $660.00, representing investigative expenses. (Doc. 17-2 at 12). 23 A. Fees 24 The Court must grant attorneys’ fees, if they are reasonable. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). The 25 “lodestar” calculation tells courts to multiply the number of hours reasonably spent by the 26 reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing 27 rate in the community “for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, 28 experience, and reputation.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The community is generally 2 defined as the district in which the case is litigated. Davis v. Mason Cty., 927 F.2d 1473, 3 1488 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Here, the hours spent litigating this matter by Riley and his research assistant are 5 reasonable, but Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence that the hourly rates charged 6 are reasonable. The only evidence is the affidavit, in which Mr. Riley even acknowledges 7 that this Court recently found a reasonable hourly rate for him in a nearly identical case to 8 be $250 and the reasonable hourly rate for the research attorney to be $100. (Doc. 17-1 at 9 6). See Garcia, 2020 WL 5535758 at *3–4. Given the similarity between the two cases and 10 the routine nature of the instant matter, the Court finds its previous evaluation of rates in 11 Garcia to be applicable here. 12 B. Costs 13 Although investigative costs are permitted under § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), “it does not 14 alleviate a plaintiff’s burden to show ‘(1) the amount of time necessary for the 15 investigation; (2) how much the investigators charged per hour; and (3) why the 16 investigators are qualified to demand the requested rate.’” G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC 17 v. Espinoza, No. CV-18-08216-PCT-JAT, 2020 WL 1703630, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020) 18 quoting J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Arvizu, No. CV-17-03130-PHX-DGC, 2018 WL 19 1621253, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 4, 2018). 20 Here, Plaintiff has attached to its Motion an invoice for an investigator showing that 21 a check was paid to an Amanda Hidalgo for $660. (Doc. 17-2 at 12). In support of this 22 request, Plaintiff’s counsel states that based on his experience in “anti-piracy cases” it is 23 his “opinion” that the investigation fee is “reasonable.” (Doc. 17-2 at 5). Plaintiff did not 24 provide amount of time spent, the investigator’s hourly rate, or the investigator’s 25 qualifications (other than to state that the investigation is difficult). The Court declines to 26 reach a different conclusion when presented with the exact same evidence as it 27 continuously rejects. See, e.g., G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Villanueva, No. CV- 28 20-00833-PHX-SPL, 2020 WL 5974936, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 8, 2020).' Therefore, Plaintiff has not met its minimal burden for investigative costs. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Doc. 17) is 5 | granted in part and denied in part as follows: 6 1. Plaintiff is awarded $1,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees under 47 U.S.C. § 7 605(e)(3)(B)Gii); and 8 2. Plaintiff's request for investigative costs is denied. 9 Dated this 13th day of November, 2020. 10

United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Next time, if Plaintiff wishes to “respect[] this Court’s prior determinations” on 28 fees and costs (Doc. 17 at 3), it will provide sufficient evidence to support its requests consistent with this Court’s orders.