Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01767/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01767-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

13 "' f t, iO: \ I. - b. f~.l" 'i .'.'c; 

.. 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KOHLER COMPANY and ANN 

SACKS TILE AND STONE, INC., 

CASE NO. ll-CV-1767 BEN (KSC) 

ORDER GRANTING 

vs. 

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 

DOMAINJET, INC.; JACK SUN; and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

[ECF No. 25] 

Defendants. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorney's fees 

and costs in connection with their lawsuit against Domainjet, Inc. and Jack Sun 

(collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 25. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' 

motion is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 8, 2011, Kohler Company and its subsidiary Ann Sacks Tile and 

Stone, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against DomainJet, Inc., 

Jack Sun, and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiffs sought relief for cybersquatting under 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and 

trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Compl., ECF No.1. Plaintiffs' 

initial attempts to serve Defendants failed, and the Court eventually authorized 

service via electronic mail. Plaintiffs sent copies ofthe complaint and summonses 

- 1 llcvl767 

Case 3:11-cv-01767-BEN-KSC Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 1 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

to Defendants at two e-mail addresses. From one of those addresses,Plaintiffs 

received a response that stated, "[y]ou are just doing useless things," and "[y]ou, 

should know how to protect yourself instead of doing useless ~hings like a fool," 

among other things. On December 11, 2012, the Court granted default judgment for 

Plaintiffs. ECF No. 24. Plaintiffs now move for attorneys' fees and costs. 

Defendants did not file an opposition. The Court finds this matter suitable for 

resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.l. 

DISCUSSION 

I. ATTORNEY'S FEES 

Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $90,093.60 based 

lIon the time on this action spent by six attorneys (Jason Elster, Daniel Rubinstein, 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Robert Adel, Ian Burkow, William Tran, and Paul McGrady, Jr.), and five 

paralegals (Nadine Varga, Loyanna Grierson, Maritza Sandoval, Lee Hutcherson, 

and Ira Milton). During the relevant time frame, each was associated with the 

international law firm Greenberg Traurig. Elster, Rubinstein, Burkow, McGrady, 

Grierson, and Milton were based in Chicago. The others were based in Orange 

County, California. 

In support ofthe motion, Plaintiffs provide an affidavit from attorney Elster 

as well as time sheets identifying tasks performed. Elster Aff., ECF No. 25-2. 

Elster, an associate, explains that he charged a rate of $355-$3 70lhour and worked 

for 48.3 hours on the matter. He states that Rubinstein, a shareholder, had a rate of 

$6301hour and worked for 0.9 hours; Adel, a shareholder, had a rate of $5901hour 

and worked for 0.4 hours; Burkow, an associate, had a rate of$275-$305Ihour and 

worked for 65.4 hours; Tran, an associate, had a rate of $475-$495Ihour and worked 

for 78.1 hours; McGrady, a shareholder, had a rate of$375lhour and worked for 16 

hours. As for the paralegals, Elster states that Varga billed at $2451hour for 1.7 

hours, Grierson billed at $2001hour for 1.2 hours, Sandoval billed at $2301hour for 

7.8 hours, Hutcherson billed at $2401hour for 31.14 hours, and Milton billed at 

- 2- llcv1767 

Case 3:11-cv-01767-BEN-KSC Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 2 of 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 

$175/hour for 25.4 hours. Elster states that the billing rates· for these~a,ttorneys and 

paralegals were comparable to the rates charged by similar firm~ in theirrespeqtive 

markets for work performed by individuals ofsimilar experience. 

Section 35(a) ofthe Lanham Act provides that a court may award reasonable 

attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff in "exceptional cases." 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1117(a). "A trademark case is exceptional where the district court finds that the 

defendant acted maliciously, fraudulently, deliberately, or willfully." Earthquake 

Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus., 352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2003). A case may 

also be exceptional when a defendant disregards the proceedings and does not 

appear. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F .R.D. 494, 502 

(C.D. Cal. 2003). The Court finds this case exceptional based on Defendants' 

willful conduct and disregard for the judicial process. 

In the Ninth Circuit, the starting point for the calculation ofreasonable fees is 

the "lodestar." Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Mach., 668 F.3d 677, 689 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citing Intel Corp v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number ofhours reasonably expended 

on the litigation by a reason~ble hourly rate. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, 

Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). The lodestar is presumptively reasonable, 

but in rare cases, the court may adjust it based on various factors. Secalt, 668 F.3d 

at 689. A court should review the attorneys' time sheets to determine the 

reasonableness ofthe hours claimed, and it should look to the prevailing rate in the 

community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience 

and reputation to gauge the reasonableness of the charged rate. Chalmers v. City of 

Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1986), amended on other grounds, 

808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987). "[A]ttorney's fees under the Lanham Act may also 

include reasonable costs that the party cannot recover as the 'prevailing party. '" 

Secalt, 668 F .3d at 690. 

Plaintiffs contend that they incurred $19,960.50 in attorney's fees for 

-3- llcv1767 

Case 3:11-cv-01767-BEN-KSC Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 3 of 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 

preparing and filing the complaint, $40,105 in attorney's fees for.prep~ring an 

alternative service motion and related papers, and $30,028.1 0 in attorney's feesJor 

preparing a motion for default judgment and related papers.:f;lster AfE; , 15. 

Plaintiffs have submitted time records documenting 56.5, 134.1, and 85.24 hours, 

respectively spent on these tasks by the attorneys and paralegals mentioned above. 

Having reviewed the time sheets, the Court concludes that under the circumstances, 

the time spent was reasonable. 

The appropriateness ofthe billable rates present a closer question. The party 

seeking fees bears the burden ofdemonstrating that the rates used are in line with 

the prevailing market rate ofthe relevant community, Carson v. Billings Police 

Dep't, 470 F.3d 889,891 (9th Cir. 2006), although a court may in its discretion rely 

on its own knowledge and experience with the legal market, Ingram v. Oroudjian, 

647 F.3d 925,928 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Typically, the "relevant 

community" is "the forum in which the district court sits." Camacho, 523 F.3d at 

979 (citing Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496,500 (9th Cir. 1997)). Elster's affidavit 

states only that the rates charged by the attorneys and paralegals were comparable to 

those of similarly qualified individuals in their respective markets, namely Chicago 

and Orange County. While the affidavit does not directly address rates in the 

Southern District of California, the rates used appear reasonable based on the results 

obtained, the Court's knowledge ofthe market, and fee awards in similar cases. See 

Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Coldwater Creek Inc. , No. 06-CV-01848-H (POR), 

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4005, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) (approving fees in a 

Lanham Act case at hourly rates ranging from $90 to $210 per hour for paralegal 

work and $125 to $625 per hour for attorney work). As Defendants have not 

appeared to oppose this motion, Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees is granted. 

II. LITIGATION COSTS 

A prevailing Lanham Act plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the action. 15 

U.S.C. § 1117(a). Plaintiffs seek an award of $350, the cost of filing the complaint. 

-4- I1cv1767 

Case 3:11-cv-01767-BEN-KSC Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 4 of 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 

Elster Aff. ~ 18. Plaintiffs request is reasonable. It is thereforegr~ted. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set out above, the Court awards Plaiptiffsattomey's fees in 

the amount of$90,093.60 and costs in the amount of$350. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: APri~3 

- 5 - llcv1767 

Case 3:11-cv-01767-BEN-KSC Document 27 Filed 04/08/13 Page 5 of 5