Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00523/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00523-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0605 Communications Act of 1934

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Adrian Mosqueda, individually and d/b/a 

Adrian’s Restaurant, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-00523-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions Incorporated has filed a motion for award of 

costs and attorneys’ fees. Doc. 35. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. Background. 

A boxing match titled “The Event”: The Manny Pacquiao v. Joshua Clottey WBO 

Welterweight Championship (“the Program”) was telecast nationwide on March 13, 2010. 

Doc. 25-1 ¶ 1; Doc. 26 at 2. Plaintiff owned the exclusive commercial distribution rights 

to the Program, including undercard events and all color commentary. Doc. 25-1 ¶ 2. 

Plaintiff’s investigator, Frank Balkom, Sr., observed the Program being displayed at 

Adrian’s Restaurant on March 13, 2010. Id. ¶ 7. Defendant did not pay a commercial 

licensing fee to Plaintiff to broadcast the Program (Doc. 25-1 ¶ 4; Doc. 26 at 2), and did 

not have permission from Plaintiff to broadcast the Program at Defendant’s commercial 

establishment (Doc. 25-1 ¶ 5; Doc. 26 at 2). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 25) with respect to all claims except the claim under § 553, 

Case 2:12-cv-00523-DGC Document 41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

which it denied as moot (Doc. 33 at 7), and ordered Defendant to pay damages. Doc. 33 

at 8. 

II. Legal Standard. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 54.2(b), a party seeking to recover attorneys’ fees must file 

and serve a motion “within fourteen (14) days of entry of judgment in the action with 

respect to which the services were rendered.” LRCiv 54.2(b)(1). At a minimum, the 

motion must specify the applicable judgment and the statutory or contractual authority 

entitling the party to the award, and the amount of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable 

expenses sought or a fair estimate of such amount. LRCiv 54.2(b)(1)(A)-(B). 

 The party seeking attorneys’ fees must also file and serve a memorandum in 

support of the motion and all supporting documentation. LRCiv 54.2(b)(2). The 

supporting memorandum must include a discussion of eligibility, entitlement, and the 

reasonableness of the requested award. LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)-(3). Local rule 54.2(c) sets 

forth the issues, factors, and legal authority that must be addressed in the memorandum’s 

separate eligibility and entitlement sections. LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)-(2). A party seeking to 

recover fees must also attach supporting documentation to the memorandum, including 

(1) a statement of consultation; (2) “a complete copy of any written fee agreement, or a 

full recitation of any oral fee agreement”; (3) a task-based itemized statement of fees and 

expenses; (4) an affidavit of moving counsel; and (5) “[a]ny other affidavits or 

evidentiary matter deemed appropriate under the circumstances or required by law.” 

LRCiv 54.2(d)(1)-(5). The subsection requiring a statement of consultation, provides: 

No motion for award of attorneys’ fees will be considered unless a separate 

statement of the moving counsel is attached to the supporting memorandum 

certifying that, after personal consultation and good faith efforts to do so, 

the parties have been unable to satisfactorily resolve all disputed issues 

relating to attorneys’ fees or that the moving counsel has made a good faith 

effort, but has been unable, to arrange such conference. The statement of 

consultation shall set forth the date of consultation, the names of the 

participating attorneys and the specific results or shall describe the efforts 

made to arrange such conference and explain the reasons why such 

conference did not occur. 

Case 2:12-cv-00523-DGC Document 41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

LRCiv 54.2(d)(1). Finally, the affidavit of moving counsel must at a minimum, set forth 

the background by providing a brief description of the relevant qualifications, experience 

and case-related contributions of each attorney for whom fees are claimed; a full 

discussion of the reasonableness of rates, including any fee arrangement and any fees 

paid pursuant to such arrangement; and a full discussion of the reasonableness of time 

spent and expenses incurred. LRCiv 54.2(d)(4)(A)-(C). 

III. Analysis.

A. Investigator Costs. 

 Plaintiff seeks to recover investigator fees and expenses. Specifically, Plaintiff 

believes that investigative expenses are “other items” within the contemplation of the 

Local Rule. Doc. 35 at 2; LRCiv 54.1(e)(10). The Court does not agree. Local Rule 

54.1(e)(10) applies to “[o]ther items [that] may be taxed with prior court approval.” 

Plaintiff does not contend that it obtained prior court approval to tax its investigator fees 

or expenses. 

 Plaintiff seeks to recover $510.00 in costs attributed to fees of the clerk and fees 

for service of summons and subpoena. Doc. 35 at 5. These costs are recoverable under 

the Local Rule. LRCiv 54.1(e)(1). 

B. Attorneys’ Fees. 

Plaintiff prevailed on its claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, and Defendant does not 

dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 47 U.S.C. 

§ 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff seeks an award of $6,656.25. Due to significant deficiencies 

in Plaintiff’s motion, however, the Court will award no fees. 

 Plaintiff admits in its brief that “no consultation with respect to the fees requested 

herein occurred.” Doc. 38-1 at 3. Local Rule 54.2 specifically states, however, that no 

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees “will be considered” unless a separate statement of 

moving counsel certifies to prior consultation. LRCiv 54.2(d)(1). Because Plaintiff 

failed to engage in the required consultation, its motion for fees will not be considered. 

 Plaintiff also fails to justify the reasonableness of its request. Of the thirteen 

Case 2:12-cv-00523-DGC Document 41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

factors identified by the Local Rule, Plaintiff discusses only two. See LRCiv 54.2(c)(3). 

In fact, the only guidance Plaintiff provides the Court in ascertaining the reasonableness 

of attorneys’ fees is a single sentence: “Commercial piracy is a highly specialized field 

of law, and Plaintiff’s counsel has specialized in the civil litigation of such claims since 

1994.” Doc. 38 at 2. Plaintiff fails to supply an affidavit that complies with Local Rule 

54.2(d)(4). The rule requires a movant to set forth “[a] brief description of the relevant 

qualifications, experience and case-related contributions of each attorney for whom fees 

are claimed.” LRCiv 54.2(d)(4)(A). Plaintiff’s affidavit sets forth the qualifications and 

contributions of Thomas P. Riley, but it is silent as to any other attorney for whom fees 

were claimed even though $3,900 in fees – over half – were claimed for an unnamed 

attorney’s work. The affidavit also ignores the burden imposed on Plaintiff to convince 

this Court of the reasonableness of time spent and expenses incurred litigating the matter. 

LRCiv 54.2(d)(4)(C). 

 There are also serious problems with the time-based itemized statement of fees 

submitted by Plaintiff. The rule requires that all time entries for legal research “identify 

the specific legal issue researched and, if appropriate, should identify the pleading or 

document the preparation of which occasioned the conduct of the research. Time entries 

simply stating ‘research’ or ‘legal research’ are inadequate and the court may reduce the 

award accordingly.” LRCiv 54.2(e)(2)(B). Practically every time entry submitted by 

Plaintiff is deficient under this rule. This shortcoming is particularly problematic in this 

case because Plaintiff prevailed on two theories: a § 605 claim for which Plaintiff could 

recover attorneys’ fees, and a conversion theory for which Plaintiff could not recover 

attorneys’ fees. Doc. 33 at 2-7. Failure to delineate which hours were billed for which 

theory makes it impossible for the Court to determine the proper award. In addition, 

Plaintiff’s request includes $636.75 in fees for the work of an administrative assistant. 

Doc. 38-1 at 3. Although this individual occasionally engaged in substantive legal work 

under a lawyer’s supervision, most of the work is secretarial in nature. See Doc. 35 at 17-

22. Secretarial or clerical work is not properly included in an award of attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:12-cv-00523-DGC Document 41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

See Schrum v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. CIV 04-0619, 2008 WL 2278137, at 

*12 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2008). 

 In short, Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with substantially all the requirements 

of Local Rule 54.2. The Court will therefore deny the motion. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for award of costs and attorneys’ fees 

(Doc. 35) is granted in part and denied in part. $510.00 is awarded for costs attributed 

to clerk’s fees and fees for service of summons and subpoena, but Plaintiff may not 

recover investigative fees. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 24th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00523-DGC Document 41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 5 of 5