Reflex Media, Inc. v. Richard Easton Limited

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada Case No. 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY corporation; and CLOVER 8 5 INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD., a Singapore corporation, ORDER 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 RICHARD EASTON LIMITED, a Delaware 9 corporation, d/b/a www.FirstDateClub.com; RICHARD EASTON, an individual; MARIA 10 JOSE DIAZ, an individual; NELIDA TEJEDA ALVAREZ, an individual; JORGE OSBALDO 11 RODRIGUEZ, an individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 12 Defendants. 13 14 On July 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs Reflex Media, Inc. and Clover8 Investments 15 PTE’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 61. The Court’s Order included an award of reasonable 16 attorney’s fees and costs. Id. Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum in support of the award of fees on 17 July 20, 2022. ECF No. 63. Plaintiffs have no costs. Id. The due date set by the Court for a response 18 to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum was July 27, 2022. No response was filed. 19 I. Discussion 20 The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has adopted the hybrid lodestar/multiplier 21 approach, used by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), as the proper 22 method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees due in most actions. The lodestar/multiplier 23 approach has two parts. First, the court determines the lodestar amount by multiplying the number 24 of hours reasonably expended on a motion by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. at 433. To get to this 25 calculation, the party seeking an award of fees must submit evidence supporting the hours worked 26 and the rates claimed. Id. The district court will then, generally, exclude from the lodestar amount 27 hours that are not reasonably expended because they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise 1 the lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” based on factors not subsumed in the initial 2 calculation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898–901 (1984) (reversing upward multiplier based on 3 factors subsumed in the lodestar determination); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n.9 (noting that courts 4 may look at “results obtained” and other factors but should consider that many of these factors are 5 subsumed in the lodestar calculation). 6 A. The Hourly Rate Charged. 7 The court determines a reasonable hourly rate by reference to the “prevailing market rates in 8 the relevant community” for an attorney of similar experience, skill, and reputation. Gonzalez v. 9 City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). The relevant community 10 generally is “the forum in which the district court sits.” Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 11 F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “For the Las Vegas market, this court has 12 regularly awarded fees where the hourly rates at issue were between $250 and $400.” Scott v. Smith's 13 Food and Drug Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-303-JCM-VCF, 2020 WL 343642, at *2 (D. Nev. 14 Jan. 21, 2020) (compiling cases). The Memorandum filed by Plaintiffs explains that Isaac Eddington 15 and Joseph Schaeffer drafted the motion to compel and reply. These attorneys were supervised by 16 Mark Smith, but his time is not included in the time for which an award of fees is sought. Messrs. 17 Schaeffer and Eddington have been practicing for 10 and 22 years respectively. Mr. Schaeffer bills 18 at $350 per hour, while Mr. Eddington bills at $455 per hour. These rates are reasonable for the Las 19 Vegas market particularly because of the nature of this case, which involves intellectual property. 20 B. The Amount of Time Spent. 21 The Court also finds the amount of time spent on the Motion to Compel is reasonable. 22 “District courts possess the necessary discretion to adjust the amounts awarded to address excessive 23 and unnecessary effort expended in a manner not justified by the case.” Ballen v. City of Redmond, 24 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). This includes “time spent reviewing work of other attorneys as 25 duplicative” (Melancon v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00212-RCJ-RJJ, 2010 26 WL 11639687, at *4 (D. Nev. Feb. 26, 2010)), as well as entries on time reports that fails “to 27 delineate what work was performed in each entry” and thus appear duplicative. American General 1 || 16, 2012). Ultimately, it is always the moving party’s burden to establish that the fees sought a 2 || reasonable. Soule v P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02239-GMN-GWF, 20. 3 || WL 3416667, at *1 (D. Nev. July 26, 2019) (citation omitted). The amount of time spent for whi 4 || reimbursement is requested in this case totals 16.1 hours. A review of the billing records demonstra 5 || the time was spent engaged in reasonable, non-duplicative, and necessary work. 6 || IL. Order 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum of Attorneys’ Fees (EC 8 || No. 63) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must make payment to Plaintiffs in tl 10 |} following amount within 30 days of the date of this Order unless an objection is filed: 1] $6,727.00 in attorney’s fees. 12 13 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2022.

15 : ELAYNAY. YOU: H 16 UNITED. STATES MAG TE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28