United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES [ECF NO. 13]
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
Before
the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events,
LLC's motion for costs and attorney's fees. (ECF No.
13.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court
grants Plaintiff's motion.
BACKGROUND
On
March 2, 2018, Plaintiff, an international distributor of
sports and entertainment programming, initiated this action
against Defendants Esteban Garcia Pacheco, individually and
d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria, and Alina
Santamaria, individually and d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a
El Primo Birrieria, for their alleged unauthorized and
unlawful inteception and exhibition of Plaintiff's sports
and entertainment programing at Defendants' commercial
establishment, Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria.
(ECF No. 1.) In its complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of
action against Defendants for alleged violations of 47 U.S.C.
§ 553, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and Cal. Bus. & Prof.
§ 17200, et seq., and for conversion.
(Id.) Defendants were served on April 17, 2018 (ECF
Nos. 4-5), but nevertheless failed to appear or respond to
the complaint.
On June
4, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default against
Defendants by the Clerk. (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk entered
default against Defendants the following day. (ECF No. 7.) On
August 8, 2018, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against
Defendants and requested leave to file a motion for costs and
attorney's fees. (ECF No. 10.) On March 26, 2019, the
Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as
to all causes of action asserted as well as leave to file a
motion for costs and attorney's fees. (ECF No. 11.) The
Clerk entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants the following day. (ECF No. 12.) On April
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed its present motion for costs and
attorney's fees. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants have not filed
any opposition to the present motion or otherwise appeared in
this action.
DISCUSSION
In its
present motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the
amount of $2, 519.83 and attorney's fees in the amount of
$3, 007.00. (ECF No. 13-1, at 5.) Plaintiff argues it is
entitled to this award because 47 U.S.C. § 605 requires
courts to award costs and attorney's fees to a prevailing
aggrieved party. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff further
argues it is an “aggrieved party” under Section
605 because it “had the exclusive nationwide
distribution rights to” the intercepted programming.
(Id. at 2-3 (citing ECF No. 10-4, ¶ 3); see
also ECF No. 10-4 ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 (closed-circuit
television license agreement for the intercepted
programming).) The Court agrees on both points. See
47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6) (“[T]he term ‘any
person aggrieved' shall include any person with
proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire
or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of
satellite cable programming . . . .”); 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(B)(iii) (“The court-- . . . shall direct the
recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable
attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who
prevails.”).
In
support of its request for an award of costs and
attorney's fees, Plaintiff filed a declaration of
counsel, an itemized list of costs and attorney's fees
incurred in this matter, as well as other relevant
documentary evidence. (ECF No. 13-2.) Plaintiff's costs
include investigative expenses ($1, 935.00), process server
fees ($184.83), and filing fees ($400.00). (Id. at
¶¶ 2, 9, 10 & Exs. 1-3.). Given all costs for
which reimbursement is sought by Plaintiff appear to be
necessary to the proper prosecution of this action and
Section 605's requirement that courts “direct the
recovery of full costs” to the prevailing
party, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) (emphasis added),
the Court concludes that these costs are recoverable.
Before
awarding Plaintiff its attorney's fees, however, the
Court must determine the reasonableness of such fees. 47
U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). To do so, the Court will
“apply the ‘lodestar' method to determine
what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee . . . . then
adjust the lodestar upward or downward based on a variety of
factors.”[1] Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729
F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations,
citations, and alterations omitted). “Under the
lodestar method, the district court multiplies the number of
hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate” to arrive at
the “lodestar figure.” Id. (internal
quotations and citations omitted). In doing so, the Court
“may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee
request, and exclude those hours for which it would be
unreasonable to compensate the prevailing party[, ]”
because, for example, they are “excessive, redundant,
or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 1203
(internal quotations and citations omitted). The reasonable
hourly rate is based upon the “prevailing market rates
in the relevant community, ” taking into consideration
“the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney
or paralegal.” Id. at 1205-06 (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Here,
counsel for Plaintiff attests that his administrative
assistant billed 7.32 hours at a rate of $100.00 per hour,
his research attorney billed 4.5 hours at a rate of $300.00
per hour, and he billed 1.85 hours at a rate of $500.00 per
hour, for a total attorney's fee incurred of $3, 007.00
on 13.67 billable hours, for a blended hourly rate of
approximately $219.97 per hour. (ECF No. 13-2 at ¶¶
2, 6, 8 & Ex. 1.) Upon review of the detailed hourly
billing records (id. at Ex. 1), the Court is
satisfied that all 13.67 billable hours for which
reimbursement is sought were reasonably necessary to the
proper prosecution of this action. Further, the Court is
satisfied that the blended hourly billing rate of $219.97 is
reasonable for this geographic area in light of counsel's
experience, reputation, and abilities. (See id. at
¶¶ 3-5.) Moreover, the Court concludes that no
adjustment is necessary to the lodestar figure given that
many of the relevant factors are neutral on the facts of this
matter and the lodestar figure is commensurate with the
attorney's fees awards in similar cases in this District.
See, e.g., G & G Closed Circuit
Events, LLC v. Beltran, et al., 3:18-cv-02099-CAB-LL,
ECF No. 13 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) ($3, 143.32 for 14.43
hours); G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Sanchez,
et al., 3:18-cv-02096-WQH-KSC, ECF No. 17 (S.D. Cal. May
6, 2019) (awarding $2, 752.00 for 12.92 hours of legal work);
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Paz-Padilla, et
al., No. 3:12-cv-02228-GPC-WMC, ECF No. 18 (S.D. Cal.
2013) ($2, 448.75 for 13.9 hours). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that an award of $3, 007.00 in attorney's fees
to Plaintiff is reasonable and warranted.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs motion for costs and
attorney's fees (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED
and the Court awards Plaintiff $3, 007.00 in attorney's
fees and $2, 519.83 in costs against Defendants.
IT
...