Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00550/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00550-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J & J Sports Productions Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Francisco Arvizu, individually and dba

Pancho’s Cantina & Grill, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 12-550-TUC-FRZ-DTF

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys’

Fees. In accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Court, LRCiv 72(a), this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 18.) The

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, award costs in the amount of $470 and deny the request for fees.

BACKGROUND

In the Complaint, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. alleged it was granted the

exclusive rights to distribute “Fight of the Year: the Rematch!”: Juan Manuel Marquez v.

Juan Diaz, on Saturday, July 31, 2010. Plaintiff alleged Defendant Arvizu owns Pancho’s

Cantina and Grill in Douglas, Arizona, and the cantina unlawfully intercepted and broadcast

the fight. The Complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605,

(2) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, and (3) conversion.

Case 4:12-cv-00550-FRZ-DTF Document 21 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 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

1 In his motion, counsel seeks costs in the amount of $1120. (Doc. 20 at 3.) This

appears to be a clerical error because the total costs from the attached Bill of Costs is $1070.

(Doc. 20, Ex. A.)

- 2 -

Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint or otherwise appear in this action.

Default was requested and entered by the Clerk on December 17, 2012. (Doc. 13.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff sought and was granted a default judgment in the amount of $3400 on

January 17, 2014. (Docs. 18, 19.) The Court denied the request for conversion damages and

did not resolve whether Plaintiff was awarded damages under § 553 or § 605. Docs. 16, 18.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff was directed by the Court to comply with Local Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.2

in seeking costs and fees. (Docs. 16, 18.)

Costs

Plaintiff requests $350 for fees of the Clerk, $120 for fees for service of the summons

and subpoena, and $600 in investigative expenses.1

 (Doc. 20, Ex. A.) Clerk’s fees and service

fees are recoverable under LRCiv 54.1(e)(1), therefore, these requests should be allowed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover the costs of his investigator as an “other” expense under

LRCiv 54.1(e)(10). That provision allows recovery for other items “with prior Court

approval.” Id. Plaintiff did not seek or obtain prior court approval to tax its investigator

expenses. Therefore, this request should be denied.

Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff contends he is entitled to fees in the amount of $2163.75, based on 47 U.S.C.

§ 605. Section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) provides the court “shall” direct the recovery of costs and

attorneys’ fees. As mentioned above, the Court’s damages award was not specific to a

violation of § 605 versus § 553. Contrary to § 605, § 553 allows but does not mandate a cost

and fee award. 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C). Regardless, because the undersigned finds

Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with all provisions of the Local Rules, he recommends

Case 4:12-cv-00550-FRZ-DTF Document 21 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 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

2 Plaintiff cites LRCiv 54.2(b)(1)(A)&(B) in his motion, however, no such

section exists and the provisions he purports to quote are not taken from the Court’s rules.

(See Doc. 20 at 2.) They are more closely related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).

- 3 -

denying fees.2

The Local Rules require a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Award of

Attorneys’ Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses, which is required to include a

discussion of three topics (and their sub-topics) with headings: eligibility, entitlement and

reasonableness of the award. LRCiv 54.2(c). Plaintiff did not include a memorandum and the

motion does not include a discussion of many of the sub-topics. In particular, the motion does

not address the legal authority, if any, for awarding fees for preparation of the fee motion,

LRCiv 54.2(c)(2), or most of the 13 topics under reasonableness of the award, LRCiv

54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M).

Plaintiff attached the required affidavit of counsel; however, in discussing the

reasonableness of his rate, counsel was required to discuss the terms of any written or oral

fee agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(iv); LRCiv 54.2(d)(4)(B). Additionally, the fee

agreement is to be attached to the request for fees or, if no agreement exists, counsel must

attach a statement to that effect. LRCiv 54.2(d)(2). Plaintiff neither attached a fee agreement

nor discussed the fee agreement in his affidavit. Further, in discussing the reasonableness of

his billing rate, counsel cites and attaches the Laffey Matrix, which is based on the cost of

living in the Washington, D.C. area. (Doc. 20, Ex. C & Ex. 2.) Counsel provides no authority

for the use of this matrix for a case filed in Tucson, Arizona.

At the time judgment was entered, Plaintiff was counseled to comply with LRCiv 54.2

and has failed to do so. Additionally, the Court notes that the Court has declined to award

fees to this counsel in other cases for violation of the Local Rules. J&J Sports Productions,

Inc. v. Mosqueda, No. CV-12-00523-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2013) (declining to

award fees); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Bernal, No. CV-12-00726-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz.

March 14, 2014) (declining to award fees); J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Margaillan, No.

CV-13-00312-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2014) (declining to award fees for preparation of

Case 4:12-cv-00550-FRZ-DTF Document 21 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

the motion for fees). Therefore, he was on notice of the relevant rules and the need to

comply. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for fees should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Award

of Costs and Attorney’s Fees. The Court should award $470 in costs and deny the request for

fees.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party’s objections within fourteen days.

No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. If

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2014.

Case 4:12-cv-00550-FRZ-DTF Document 21 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 4