United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
D. CLARKE, United States Magistrate Judge
J & J Sports Productions, Inc., moves for attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii),
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2), and Local Rule 54.3. For the reasons
stated below, the Court recommends Plaintiffs motion for
attorney fees and costs be GRANTED.
filed its Complaint on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff alleged
Defendant Fiesta Market & Taqueria, Inc., by and through
its president, Defendant Esteban Gonzalez, unlawfully
intercepted and broadcast the May 2, 2015, "Fight of the
Century" between professional boxers Floyd Mayweather,
Jr., and Manny Pacquaio. Plaintiff alleged Defendants did so
for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage and
without first obtaining a sublicense from Plaintiff, in
violation of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605,
and the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. §
553. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged "Defendants
willfully took and appropriated Plaintiffs property for their
personal financial gain" and did so without Plaintiffs
permission. Compl. ¶ 36. Plaintiff requested
damages in the amount of $10, 000 and $30, 000 for violations
of 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) and
(e)(3)(C)(ii), respectively, as well as $9, 000 in damages
resulting from its trespass to chattel claim.
Fiesta Market & Taqueria, Inc., was served on May 11,
2017, and Defendant Esteban Gonzalez was served on May 23,
2017. Neither defendant answered within the allotted time
provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
Hence, on August 28, 2017, the Clerk entered an order of
default against Defendants. Plaintiff subsequently moved for
an entry of default judgment, which the Court granted in part
and denied in part. [CM/ECF No. 20.]. Plaintiff was given
fourteen days from the entry of default to submit its motion
for attorney fees and costs. [CM/ECF No. 19.]. Plaintiff
timely filed its motion for attorney fees and costs. [CM/ECF
No. 21.]. No objection has been filed. Plaintiff seeks $5,
945.00 in attorney fees and $1, 105.00 in costs.
attorney fees are recoverable under 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(B)(iii). The Court determines the amount of
reasonable attorney fees by applying the "lodestar"
method. Ferlandv. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d
1145, 1149 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2001). "The 'lodestar'
method is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the
prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a
reasonable hourly rate." Id. (internal citation
and quotation omitted). "In determining reasonable
hours, 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). "Where the
documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may
reduce the award accordingly." Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). A district court
should also exclude from the lodestar fee calculation any
hours that were not "reasonably expended, " such as
hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary. Id. at 434.
district court must determine a reasonable hourly rate after
considering the experience, skill, and reputation of the
attorney requesting fees. Chalmers, 796 F.2d at
1210. Reasonable hourly rates are determined by reference to
"prevailing market rates in the relevant community,
" with emphasis on fees charged by lawyers of
"comparable skill, experience, and reputation."
Davis v. City of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1546
(9th Cir. 1992), vacated on other grounds by 984
F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citation and quotation
omitted). Typically, the forum district represents the
relevant legal community. Gates v. Deuhnejian, 987
F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992).
attorney requesting fees bears the burden of producing
satisfactory evidence "that the requested rates are in
line with those prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,
experience and reputation." Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11 (1984). "Affidavits of the
plaintiff's] attorney and other attorneys regarding
prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in
other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the
plaintiff's] attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the
prevailing market rate." United Steelworkers of Am.
v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir.
1990). Additionally, courts in the District of Oregon have
the benefit of several billing rate surveys, including the
most recent Oregon State Bar 2017 Economic Survey ("2017
Survey"). The 2017 Survey contains data on attorney
billing rates based on type of practice, geographic area of
practice, and years of practice.
"aggrieved" and prevailing party in this action,
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees. 47 U.S.C.
§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii); 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6).
Plaintiff requests $5, 945.00 in attorney fees, consisting of
8.2 hours of attorney time at a rate of $350.00 per hour for
the work of attorney Bruce H. Orr and 20.5 hours of paralegal
time at a rate of $150.00 per hour for the work of paralegal
Antony Nickles. In support of its fee request, Plaintiff
submits Mr. Orr's declaration, which contains a chart
depicting the services rendered and hours billed, as well as
an explanation for the hourly rates charged. See Orr
Decl. [CM/ECF No. 22.].
Court finds the attorney fee request reasonable. Mr.
Orr's chart contains a detailed explanation of attorney
and paralegal time expended and separates-i.e.,
itemizes-time for individual tasks. Fischer v. SJB-P.D.
Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally,
the Court finds no hours "that are excessive, redundant,
or otherwise unnecessary" based on an assessment of what
'"could reasonably have been billed to a private
client.'" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434;
Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202
(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Moreno v. City of
Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008)).
the Court finds the hourly rate for both attorney and
paralegal time to be reasonable. As stated, a reasonable
hourly rate is determined by looking to the "prevailing
market rates in the relevant community, " as well as the
skill, experience, and reputation ...