Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04531-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRATERS & FREIGHTERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, dba FREIGHT &

CRATE; CATHY BENZ; and FRED BENZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4531 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR FURTHER

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

(Docket No. 108)

Plaintiff Craters & Freighters seeks to recover attorneys’

fees in addition to those already awarded. Defendants Daisychain

Enterprises, Cathy Benz and Fred Benz did not file an opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion. The motion was taken under submission on the

papers. Having considered the papers submitted by Plaintiff, the

Court GRANTS the motion in part. 

BACKGROUND

In his report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment, the Honorable Joseph C. Spero recommended that

the Court find Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiff’s

trademarks, rendering this an “exceptional” case and justifying the

award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Report

and Recommendation of March 3, 2010, at 19. Judge Spero also

recommended that the Court award Plaintiff $32,905.50 for

attorneys’ fees incurred as of November 23, 2009. Id. at 20. This

total was the sum of $17,570.00 and $15,335.50, which were the

amounts billed by Plaintiff’s counsel John P. Schmitz and Donald L.

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 116 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 In his declaration, Schmitz stated that he billed Plaintiff

$21,835.53 for fees. Schmitz Decl. ¶ 3. However, a review of his

billing statements shows that he billed $21,835.78. 

2

Tasto respectively. Id. at 20. Schmitz billed at $200.00 per

hour, whereas Tasto billed at $295.00 per hour. Id. at 19. Judge

Spero recommended finding the billing rates reasonable, but

recommended disallowing hours unreasonably expended and denying

Plaintiff’s request for fees for services not billed as of November

23. The Court adopted Judge Spero’s report and recommendation. 

Plaintiff now seeks to recover fees incurred after November

23, 2009. A significant amount of litigation in this action

occurred after that date. On December 3, 2009, the Court held a

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, at

which Plaintiff’s counsel appeared. On February 1, 2010, Defendant

Fred Benz filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed. On

February 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show

cause concerning Defendants’ violation of the Court’s preliminary

injunction. On February 5, 2010, Judge Spero held a hearing on

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, at which Plaintiff’s

counsel appeared. On February 17, 2010, Mr. Benz filed a motion to

stay the proceedings, which Plaintiff opposed. On April 15, 2010,

the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show

cause, at which Plaintiff’s counsel appeared. 

DISCUSSION

After November 23, 2009, Schmitz charged Plaintiff $21,835.78

for fees,1 and Tasto charged $8,862.19 for the same. Schmitz’s

billing rate was $200 per hour. Tasto billed $295 per hour for

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 116 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

work completed through December 16, 2009; for work completed

thereafter, he charged $200 per hour. The billing rate for

paralegals was $75 per hour. Schmitz and Tasto filed declarations

and billing statements in support of Plaintiff’s motion. 

As noted above, the Court has already found this to be an

“exceptional” case warranting the award of attorneys’ fees. Thus,

the Court “may award reasonable attorney fees” to Plaintiff as the

prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). 

In the Ninth Circuit, reasonable attorneys’ fees are

determined by first calculating the “lodestar.” Jordan v.

Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987). “The

‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the

prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a

reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d

359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a strong presumption that the

lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Jordan, 815 F.2d at

1262. However, the court may adjust the award from the lodestar

figure upon consideration of additional factors that may bear upon

reasonableness. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70

(9th Cir. 1975).

The hourly rates charged were reasonable. In addition, the

Court finds most of the hours billed to be reasonable, with one

exception. On March 9, 2010, Schmitz spent 3.9 hours reviewing an

“attorney audit report,” drafting an “Annual Attorney Opinion

Letter,” reviewing an “FASB No. 5” and discussing with co-counsel

the Court’s “ruling on order to show cause.” Schmitz Decl., Ex. A

at 2. The same day, a paralegal spent half an hour gathering

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 116 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

“notes and files for Attorney Audit Letter.” Id. Aside from

counsel’s discussion on the Court’s ruling, the other tasks billed

do not appear necessary to this litigation. Accordingly, the Court

disallows recovery for three hours of work claimed by Schmitz and

the one-half hour of work completed by the paralegal. 

With the Court’s reduction taken into account, Plaintiff is

awarded an additional $30,022.97 for attorneys’ fees incurred after

November 23, 2009. Of this amount, $21,160.78 and $8,862.19 are

attributable to Schmitz and Tasto respectively.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part

Plaintiff’s motion for further attorneys’ fees. (Docket No. 108.) 

Plaintiff is awarded an additional $30,022.97 for fees incurred

after November 23, 2009. Defendants shall pay this amount

forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 22, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 116 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRATERS & FREIGHTERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAISYCHAIN ENTERPRISES, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-04531 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copies of the attached, by placing said copies

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope

in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the

Clerk's office.

Kathy Benz

574 N. Sonora Way

P.O. Box 490

Eagle, ID 83616

Dated: July 22, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04531-CW Document 116 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 5