Innovative Sports Management, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media v. Ligia R. Barbosa Cruz, individually and d/b/a Antojitos Colombianos Restaurant

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01536
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INNOVATIVE SPORTS Case No.: 3:24-cv-01536-WQH-JLB MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Integrated 12 Sports Media, ORDER 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 LIGIA R. BARBOSA CRUZ, individually 16 and d/b/a Antojitos Colombianos Restaurant, 17 Defendant. 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 The matter before the Court is the unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 21 (ECF No. 18) filed by Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management, Inc. doing business as 22 Integrated Sports Media (“Plaintiff’). 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Ligia R. Barbosa 25 Cruz, individually and doing business as Antojitos Colombianos Restaurant (“Defendant”). 26 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 27 and 553, conversion, and violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Id. 28 1 Plaintiff, an international sports and entertainment distributor, alleges that it acquired 2 the exclusive domestic commercial exhibition rights to a soccer match between Chile and 3 Columbia (the “Program”), which was broadcast nationwide on Tuesday, September 12, 4 2023. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that commercial establishments were required to obtain a 5 sub-licensing agreement from Plaintiff to lawfully broadcast the Program in their 6 establishments. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the broadcast, Defendant 7 unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the Program at her commercial establishment, 8 Antojitos Colombianos Restaurant, located at 2040 Imperial Ave., San Diego, CA 92102. 9 Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not have the required sub-licensing 10 agreement and that the unauthorized broadcast “was done willfully and for . . . commercial 11 advantage and/or private financial gain.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 22. 12 On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request to Enter Default. (ECF No. 8.) On 13 February 18, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered default as to Defendant. (ECF No. 10.) On 14 April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 14.) 15 On August 12, 2025, the Court granted Default Judgment for Plaintiff in the sum of 16 $2,250.00 against Defendant. (ECF No. 16.) The Court stated: 17 The FCA directs the Court to allow for the “recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails” under 18 its provisions. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Accordingly, the Court grants 19 Plaintiff fourteen days from the date on which judgment is entered to file a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees. 20 Id. at 13. 21 On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 22 Costs. (ECF No. 18.) The docket reflects that Defendant has not filed an Opposition. 23 Plaintiff requests $10,668.75 in attorneys’ fees and $1,199.74 in costs. (ECF No. 18 at 7.) 24 Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), courts “shall direct the recovery of full 25 costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 26 Plaintiff alleges that it had the “exclusive nationwide commercial distribution (closed- 27 circuit) rights” to broadcast the Program. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 15.) Because the Court found that 28 1 Defendant intercepted and exhibited the Program without Plaintiff’s authorization at 2 Defendant’s commercial establishment (see ECF No. 16.), Plaintiff is an aggrieved party 3 within the meaning of § 605 and thus is entitled to “full costs” and “reasonable attorneys’ 4 fees.” See 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii), (d)(6). 5 When awarding attorneys’ fees, the Court must determine the reasonableness of such 6 fees using the “lodestar” method: calculating “the number of hours reasonably expended 7 on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate,” adjusted by the factors laid out in 8 Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975). Miller v. Los Angeles Cnty. 9 Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Plaintiff filed a 10 declaration from its counsel, Thomas P. Riley, and attached an itemized list of the fees and 11 costs incurred, which total $10,668.75 in attorneys’ fees and $1,199.74 in costs. (ECF No. 12 18-1.) Plaintiff’s time records show that two attorneys spent a combined total of 21.25 13 billable hours working on this case. Id. The work consisted primarily of preparing demand 14 letters and the Complaint, researching service issues, drafting the Motion for Default 15 Judgment, responding to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, and drafting the pending 16 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Id. Plaintiff’s attorneys charged $675 per hour for 17 the senior partner and $325 for the research attorney. Id. 18 The Court finds the hourly rates and hours expended in this matter reasonable given 19 the tasks performed, and that Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees amount requires no 20 adjustments. See, e.g., G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Cole, No. 23-cv-1862-BAS- 21 DDL, 2025 WL 1150718, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025) (collecting cases from this 22 District that found similar hourly rates reasonable for senior partners); G&G Closed Circuit 23 Events, LLC v. Castillo, No. 20-CV-2114-GPC-WVG, 2021 WL 5771233, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 24 Dec. 6, 2021) (finding similar hourly rates reasonable for research attorney). Additionally, 25 Plaintiff’s costs include $725 in investigative fees, $405 in filing fees, and $69.74 in 26 shipping charges. (ECF No. 18-1 at 8.) The Court finds these costs reasonable to the 27 prosecution of the case and therefore recoverable under § 605. 28 l IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 2 ||and Costs (ECF No. 18) is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to $10,668.75 in attorneys’ fees and 3 $1,199.74 in costs. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment in 5 || accordance with this Order no later than 14 days from the entry of this Order. 6 7 Dated: November 6, 2025 itt Z. A a 8 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28