Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Lizcano Reyes

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-07917
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, Case No. 24-cv-07917-PCP INC., 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES v. AND COSTS 10 LADY Z. LIZCANO REYES, Re: Dkt. No. 22 11 Defendant.

12 13 This case involves a claim of commercial piracy. Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management 14 sued defendant Lady Z. Lizcano Reyes for publicly displaying, without a license, a soccer match 15 to which Innovative owns the commercial-exhibition rights. On August 11, 2025, the Court 16 granted Innovative’s motion for default judgment. The Court awarded Innovative $750 in statutory 17 damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553, $500 in enhanced damages pursuant to § 553, and $750 in 18 damages for conversion. On August 29, 2025, Innovative filed a motion for attorney’s fees and 19 costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C). For the following reasons, Innovative’s motion is 20 granted in part and denied in part. 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 Under 47 U.S.C § 553(c)(2)(C), courts have discretion to “direct the recovery of full costs, 23 including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails” in a Cable & 24 Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act case. In exercising that discretion, courts 25 apply the “lodestar” method. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 26 2001) (citation omitted). This method multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party 27 reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. (citation omitted). 1 [which] may be reduced by the court where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case 2 was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; if the hours expended are deemed excessive or 3 otherwise unnecessary.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). 4 “[A] district court may reduce a fee award if the amount of recovery was modest relative to the 5 amount the plaintiff initially sought.” Vargas v. Howell, 949 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2020) 6 (citation modified). 7 DISCUSSION 8 I. Fees 9 Innovative requests $5,837.50 in attorney’s fees, which breaks down as follows: 10 • 6 hours of work at an hourly rate of $675 by attorney Thomas P. Riley, totaling 11 $4,050; and 12 • 5.5 hours at an hourly rate of $325 by an unidentified research attorney, totaling 13 $1,787.50. 14 The Court agrees that the hourly rates requested by Innovative are reasonable. See 15 Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Lizcano, No. 24-cv-02678-PCP, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 16 2025) (approving hourly rates of $675 for Mr. Riley and $325 for research attorney). The Court 17 concludes, however, that it is appropriate to reduce the hours sought by Innovative for two 18 reasons. 19 First, Innovative states that “[b]illable hours for legal services rendered [were] 20 reconstructed by way of a thorough review of the files themselves.” Dkt. No. 22-1, at 3 ¶ 7. 21 “Because the billing records were not created contemporaneously, the Court finds that they are 22 inherently less reliable and susceptible to time inflation.” Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. 23 Gutierrez, 22-cv-05793-BLF, 2023 WL 4686018, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2023). The Court finds 24 that it is reasonable to reduce the requested fee award by twenty-five percent given the non- 25 contemporaneous nature of Mr. Riley’s billing records. See id. (applying a twenty-five percent 26 reduction); Lizcano, slip op. at 4 (same); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 27 (1983) (“[T]he District Court properly considered the reasonableness of the hours expended, and 1 keep contemporaneous time records.”). 2 Second, the Court finds that an additional twenty-five percent reduction is warranted 3 because counsel’s “firm routinely files these sorts of claims” and much of the time billed for 4 extensive research is therefore almost certainly unnecessary. Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. 5 Arias, No. 22-cv-05773-WHA, 2023 WL 4238494, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2023). Indeed, the 6 motion before the Court states the following: 7 With respect to the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, while the field of piracy law in general often involves novel and 8 difficult questions, this specific case did not present any unusual 9 challenges. This case did not preclude counsel from taking any other employment, there were no time limits imposed by the client or the 10 circumstances. 11 Dkt. No. 22 at 5. 12 Applying the two twenty-five percent reductions brings the total billable amount from 13 $5,837.50 to $3,283.59. 14 This award is guided by the principle that “a district court may reduce a fee award if the 15 amount of recovery was modest relative to the amount the plaintiff initially sought.” Vargas, 949 16 F.3d at 1195 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). In this case, Innovative sought a default judgment 17 of $28,750 and the Court awarded $2,000. A fee award amounting to more than 150% of the 18 underlying judgment is appropriate under these circumstances. This amount also aligns with fee 19 awards for Mr. Riley’s work in similar matters. See, e.g., Lizcano, slip op. at 5 (awarding $3,290 20 in attorney’s fees and collecting cases awarding similar amounts). 21 Accordingly, the Court awards plaintiff $3,283.59 in attorney’s fees. 22 II. Costs 23 Innovative requests costs in the amount of $1,328.75. This amount includes $405 for the 24 complaint filing fee, $75 for service of process, $98.75 for a transcript request, and $750 for 25 investigative expenses. The Court finds it appropriate to limit costs “to the complaint filing fee, 26 the service of process charges, and the transcript fees. Pre-filing investigative costs are not costs 27 incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit and thus not recoverable.” Arias, 2023 WL 4238494, at *2 1 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021)). The Court therefore awards plaintiff $578.75 in costs. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Innovative’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court awards Innovative 4 $3,283.59 in attorney’s fees and $578.75 in costs, totaling $3,862.34. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 7, 2025

8 P. Casey Pitts 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28