Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Corona

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 16, 2014

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ERMINA CORONA, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (Doc. 28)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553, following the entry of default judgment. (Doc. 28.) Defendant Raul Ortega Corona, individually and doing business as Coronas Cantina Y Comida ("Defendant") has not opposed the motion.[1]

The Court denied the request for costs without prejudice, and referred the remaining issue- whether attorneys' fees should be awarded- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72 for the entry of Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 29.) For the following reasons, the Court recommends Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees be GRANTED.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff asserted it possessed the exclusive rights to the nationwide commercial distribution of "Manny Pacquiao v. Juan Manuel Marquez III WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program" ("the Program") televised on November 12, 2011. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff alleged Defendant intercepted and broadcast the Program in Coronas Cantina Y Comida without purchasing a proper sublicense from Plaintiff. ( Id. at 3-4.) Accordingly, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant on November 9, 2012, alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. § 533, et seq.; and the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Further, Plaintiff alleged Defendant was liable for wrongful conversion of property, arising under California State law. Id. at 4-9.

Defendant was properly served with the First Amended Complaint, but failed to respond within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon application of Plaintiff, default was entered against Defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a) for the failure to answer on February 7, 2013. (Docs. 6, 8-9.) Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment (Doc. 13), which was granted in part by the Court on February 7, 2014. (Docs. 18, 26.) Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Raul Ortega Corona, individually and doing business as Coronas Cantina Y Comida. (Doc. 27.)

The Court ordered Plaintiff to "file any application for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 no later than fourteen days from the entry of judgment." (Doc. 22 at 6). On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed the motion for attorneys' fees and pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 553, which is now pending before the Court.[2] (Doc. 24).

II. Legal Standard

The Court has the discretion to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to an aggrieved party under 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C).[3] The Ninth Circuit utilizes a "lodestar" method to compute reasonable attorneys' fees, which represents the number of hours reasonable expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000); Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996)). Consequently, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended." Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). If the documentation of hours is inadequate, or if the hours expended are excessive and unnecessary, the Court may reduce the number of hours claimed. Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1210; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

III. Discussion and Analysis

Plaintiff requests an award of fees in the amount of $2, 463.75. (Doc. 28 at 6.) Plaintiff's counsel, Thomas Riley, reports that his firm spent 13.60 hours in this action, from the preparation of a file and initial demand letter to the filing of the motion now pending before the Court. (Riley Decl. Exh. 1, Doc. 28-1 at 5-7). This amount includes 1.45 hours for Mr. Riley at a rate of $450.00 per hour, 3.00 hours for a paralegal at a rate of $150.00 per hour, 6.30 hours for an administrative assistant at a rate of $75.00 per hour, and 3.00 hours for an unidentified "research attorney" at the rate of $300.00 per hour. ( Id. at 7.) According to Mr. Riley, he and the administrative assistant worked a total of 1.95 hours at no charge." ( Id. )

A. Number of hours expended

As an initial matter, the records indicate Plaintiff seeks fees for the filing and service of documents by an administrative assistant. Such clerical tasks are not compensable because they are subsumed in firm overhead costs. Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit explained that "[w]hen clerical tasks are billed at hourly rates, the court should reduce the hours requested to account for the billing errors." Id. (citing Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Junes v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 845 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (disallowing recovery for "filing or retrieving electronic court documents"). Further, the timesheet indicates the administrative assistant and Mr. Riley completed several duplicative tasks. For example, on January 16, 2012, both the administrative assistant and Mr. Riley spent 0.15 hour on "Initial File Review and File Preparation." (Doc. 28-1 at 5.) On October 30, 2012, the administrative assistant conducted a "Public Records Research and Review of Raul Ortega Corona" for 0.25 hour. ( Id. ) Mr. Riley seeks 0.25 hour for the same task, on the same day. ( Id. )

In addition, the records do not specify how much time the administrative assistant spent on the preparation of documents compared the filing and serve of the documents. Rather, the time entries are presented in a "block" format, "which bundles tasks in a block of time, [and] makes it extremely difficult for a court to evaluate the reasonableness of the number of hours expended." Aranda v. Astrue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63667, at *13 (D. Ore. June 8, 2011); see also Welch v. Metro. Life Ins., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007) ("block billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular activities"). Although counsel is "not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended, " Hensley, 461 U.S. at 427 n.12, he nevertheless "bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended." Chalmers v. Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), amended on other grounds, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has explained that, where the attorney presents time expended in "blocks, " the Court may "simply reduce[] the fee to a reasonable amount." Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000); ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.