Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00369/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00369-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

Aviva USA Corporation, an Iowa

corporation; Aviva Brands Limited, a

United Kingdom limited company, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Anil Vazirani, an individual; Vazirani &

Associates Financial, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; Secured

Financial Solutions, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; James Regan, an

individual; Regan & Associates, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company, 

Defendants. 

Anil Vazirani, an individual; Vazirani &

Associates Financial, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; and Secured

Financial Solutions, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company,

Counterclaimants,

Aviva USA Corporation, an Iowa

Corporation; and Aviva Brands Limited, a

United Kingdom limited company,

Counterdefendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0369-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related

Expenses (Doc. 113). In a previous order, this Court found that Plaintiffs Aviva USA

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 1 of 6
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

- 2 -

Corporation and Aviva Brands Limited (“Aviva”) are entitled to sanctions against

Defendants Anil Vazarani, Vazirani & Associates Financial LLC, Secured Financial

Solutions, LLC (the “Vazirani Defendants”), James Regan, and Regan and Associates, LLC

(the “Regan Defendants”) for bad faith spoliation of evidence. The Court found that Aviva

is entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with [the motion for

sanctions] and seeking spoliated evidence.” (Doc. 101 at 14). The Court ordered the Parties

to confer in good faith and, if no agreement as to reasonable attorneys’ fees could be reached,

directed Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys’ fees in compliance with the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs now move this Court for an award of those fees and related

expenses. (Doc. 113 and Doc. 114). 

I. REASONABLENESS OF FEE AWARD

Having found that sanctions are appropriate, the Court must determine whether the

amount of fees requested is reasonable.

A. Legal Standard

In assessing the reasonableness of a sanctions award based upon attorneys’ fees and

costs, a court must inquire into the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and the costs.

Brown v. Baden (In re Yagman), 796 F.2d 1165, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Mirch v.

Frank, 266 F. App’x 586, 588, 2008 WL 341429, at *2 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[r]easonableness

is the benchmark for sanctions based on attorneys’ fees”). The Court has broad discretion

in determining what fees and costs are reasonable. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d

951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006).

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2 requires that motions for attorneys’ fees must (1)

specify the amount of fees and costs sought; (2) discuss the moving party’s eligibility and

entitlement for the requested expenses; (3) discuss the reasonableness of the requested award;

(4) provide supporting documentation; and (5) give an itemized account of the time expended

and expenses incurred. LRCiv. 54.2. 

Once a party submits an itemized list of fees with sufficient detail and establishes

entitlement to fees, the burden then shifts to the party challenging the fees to show that they

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 2 of 6
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 -

are unreasonable. The response must separately identify each and every disputed time entry

or expense item. LRCiv 54.2(f).

B. Aviva’s Claimed Fees

Aviva claims they are entitled to attorneys’ fees and related expenses in the amount

of $249,254.42. (Doc. 113 at 1). This is broadly divided into three categories: attorney and

paralegal fees for preparing the Spoliation Motion and the fees motion ($151,847.45);

expenses for a computer expert to aid in preparing the motions ($41,274.30); and attorney

and paralegal fees for discovery related to seeking spoliated evidence ($56,132.67). (Doc.

114 at 2). This third category has been determined by dividing Aviva’s overall litigation fees

by the fees incurred regarding the spoliation motion, and then applying this ratio to the fees

incurred by Aviva in conducting discovery after evidence of spoliation first came to light on

May 17, 2011. (Doc. 114 at 2-3). Aviva’s attorneys have provided an itemized list of fees

and related expenses for the case, and an explanation of why they are reasonable as required

under LRCiv 54.2(d)(2). Thus, the burden shifts to Defendants to demonstrate why the

claimed fees and expenses are unreasonable.

C. Defendants’ Response

Defendants challenge several of the claimed expenses. Specifically, they challenge

the inclusion of fees spent working on Aviva’s application for fees, the inclusion of fees

incurred by eleven hours spent working on motions to exceed page limitations, and a lack of

detail in the entries regarding the expert expenses. (Doc. 144 at 6-7, 9). More generally,

Defendants challenge excessive review and revision entries, duplication of attorney effort,

a lack of specificity regarding individual tasks, block billing and the lumping of time entries,

and the way at which Aviva arrived at their discovery fees. (Doc. 144 at 6, 8-9, 10-12).

D. Reasonableness

The Court will first examine Defendants’ challenges to the presumptive amount of

$249,254.42. 

i. Motions to Exceed Page Limits

The Defendants challenge the entries regarding motions to exceed page limitations.

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 6
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 -

Specifically, Defendants argue that such motions are typically written from templates, and

should not take as long as the 11 hours claimed. (Doc. 144 at 7). The Court agrees that the

time spent was excessive. Additionally, the motions are only tangentially related to the

motion for sanctions. As such, the Court reduces Aviva’s award by $1,949.70, the amount

listed for work on these motions.

ii. Costs For Fee Application

Defendants broadly challenge the inclusion of the fees Aviva incurred in preparing

their motion for fees. The Court will not approve of Aviva’s request for fees incurred in

preparing the motion for fees and expenses. In its January 10, 2012 Order (Doc. 43), the

Court did not state that Aviva would be entitled to the recovery of such fees. Local Rule

54.2(c)(2) states that “[i]f the moving party claims entitlement to fees for preparing the

motion and memorandum for award of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses, such

party also must cite the applicable legal authority supporting such specific request.” LRCiv

54.2(c)(2). Although Aviva does cite to authority for awarding such fees under other feeshifting rules, they have failed to do so for sanctions under the Court’s inherent power. (Doc.

114 at 10) (citing Anderson v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, 91 F.3d

1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that time spent preparing the fee application must be

included in reasonable fees under federal fee-shifting statutes)). Defendants submit that the

amount claimed for this preparation is $15,921.95. (Doc. 144-3 at 2). Accordingly, the Court

reduces Aviva’s claimed entitlement by $15,921.95.

iii. The Expert’s Time

Defendants also challenge the entries regarding the computer expert retained by

Aviva. Defendants argue that nothing in Aviva’s motion reveals what this expert time was

spent on, and hence, whether it was reasonable cannot be determined. (Doc. 144 at 9). The

Court agrees. It is possible that the Court could have found that the expense of retaining Mr.

Reinmuth was reasonable if more detail had been provided. However, the Court will not

allow expenses to be claimed without such detail. LRCiv 54.2(e)(3) (“Failure to itemize and

verify costs may result in their disallowance by the court”). Consequently, the Court reduces

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

Aviva’s claimed entitlement by $49,080.90, including the attorneys’ fees incurred in

corresponding with Mr. Reinmuth.

iv. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Costs

Defendants broadly challenge the way at which Aviva arrived at the figure of

$56,132.67 for its discovery fees related to the spoliated evidence. They argue that using the

percentage of total fees expended on the spoliation motion and applying it to the discovery

costs is arbitrary and speculative. (Doc. 144 at 11). Aviva acknowledges that arriving at the

correct figure is “more complicated,” but then fails to actually attempt to link any discovery

fees to the spoliated evidence itself. (Doc. 114 at 2). Although some percentage of the total

discovery is certainly related to the spoliated evidence, it is not the Court’s role to guess at

an adequate number without further guidance from Aviva. Nor must Defendants challenge

each individual discovery item, when the detail for the amount claimed is deficient. The

Court thus awards nothing for discovery fees and will reduce Aviva’s claimed entitlement

by $56,132.67.

v. Billing In General

The Defendants broadly challenge all of the claimed fees as wasteful and not specific

enough. For example, they argue that Aviva improperly included all time spent preparing

for oral argument on the spoliation motion, when the argument included two other motions.

(Doc. 144 at 6, 14-15). However, they fail to point to more than a few highlighted entries,

and thus do not meet their burden to oppose with specificity each disputed time entry. LRCiv

54.2(f). The Defendants also cite to a 1984 case in this district as authority for denying all

aggregate fees requested. (Doc. 144. at 8) (citing Metro Data Sys., Inc. v. Durango Sys., Inc.,

597 F. Supp. 244 (D. Ariz. 1984)). That decision points to specific examples of the kinds of

aggregate fees Defendants requested in that case. But the Court is not required to analyze

all 98 pages of line entries to determine which are duplicate efforts. Nor is it required to look

at every entry to determine which are excessive. It is Defendants’ burden to challenge fees

with specificity.

Defendants suggest an across-the-board reduction to account for these problems, and

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

cite to Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2009), to support such a

reduction. However, the holding in that case remanded the block billing issue because the

reduction applied by the district court failed to identify which hours were actually block

billed. Id. at 948. Defendants have failed to identify which hours were actually duplicative,

merely labeling the duplicate billing “pervasive.” (Doc. 144 at 9). As such, the Court will

not apply a reduction for allegedly duplicative billing.

II. AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

As described above, the proper amount of sanctions is the claimed amount

($249,254.42), less the discovery-related fees ($56,132.67), the motion for page limit fees

($1,949.70), the fee application fees ($15,921.95), and the expert’s expenses ($41,274.30)

and related fees ($7,806.60). The amount Aviva is entitled to is thus $126,169.20. The Court

is satisfied that this amount represents a sufficient sanction in attorneys’ fees for Defendants’

misconduct in spoliating evidence, and shall serve as an adequate deterrent to future

misconduct.

III. ALLOCATION OF SANCTIONS

The Court finds the Vazirani Defendants and Regan Defendants equally culpable for

the spoliation of evidence, and further finds that they should bear the sanction jointly and

severally.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses

(Doc. 113) is granted in the amount of $126,169.20.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00369-JAT Document 201 Filed 06/28/12 Page 6 of 6