Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140-12/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH 

INC., a Canadian Corporation doing business 

as SOFTWARE TECH and SOFTWARE 

TECH STORE; FUTUR-SOFT 

SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New 

York Corporation; PIERRE FRANCIS, an 

Individual; and DOES 3-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW (HRL)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 

FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

In a prior discovery order, this court agreed that plaintiff Adobe Systems, Incorporated 

(Adobe) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for defendants’ failure to appear for 

their depositions. (Dkt. 95). Adobe was directed to file supplemental papers supporting the 

claimed sum of $3,326.25.

In response to that order, Adobe’s lead counsel, Christopher Q. Pham, submitted his

declaration (along with several appended exhibits), describing the work that he and two associates 

at his firm performed in connection with defendants’ depositions. (Dkt. 96). Pham advises that, 

due to a decision to leave a particular charge off of the firm’s invoices to Adobe, the amount of the 

requested fees has been revised downward to $3,288.75.

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 103 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Although the corporate defendants were (and remain) unrepresented, defendant Francis 

was given an opportunity to file a response to Adobe’s supplemental filing. The October 30, 2015 

filing deadline has long since passed, and this court has received no response from Francis. As 

stated in the prior discovery order, if no response was received from him by the deadline, then the 

matter would be deemed submitted without further briefing or hearing, unless otherwise ordered.

Having reviewed Pham’s declaration and supporting papers, this court finds that no further 

proceedings are necessary for the resolution of this matter. For the reasons discussed below, this 

court now awards Adobe its fees in the amount of $3,288.75.

In assessing the reasonableness of Adobe’s requested fees, this court follows the lodestar 

approach, which requires the determination of the number of hours reasonably expended in 

litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. 

Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), abrogated on other grounds by Tex. State Teachers Ass’n. v. 

Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989). In making this 

determination, this court is “guided by the rate prevailing in the community for similar work 

performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Chalmers v. City of Los 

Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1986), reh’g denied, amended on other grounds, 808 

F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 

L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)).

Here, each of the identified attorneys has approximately six to fifteen years of experience, 

primarily in intellectual property matters. (Pham Decl., ¶¶ 4, 12). Each attorney billed at a rate of 

$375 per hour. (Id. ¶ 12). Based on this court’s familiarity with the range of rates customarily 

charged by attorneys practicing before it, the stated hourly rate appears to be in line (if not below)

prevailing rates for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and 

reputation. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (agreeing that “judges are 

justified in relying on their own knowledge of customary rates and their experience concerning 

reasonable and proper fees.”); see also Minichino v. First California Realty, No. C11-5185 EMC, 

2012 WL 6554401 at *7 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2012) (relying on the court’s own experience in 

evaluating a fee request). Additionally, Adobe has submitted sufficient documentation of the 

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 103 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

hours claimed. (Pham Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C). Having reviewed those records, this court finds that the 

claimed hours were necessary and were reasonably incurred and that none of the claimed time is 

duplicative or excessive.

Accordingly, this court awards Adobe $3,288.75 in fees incurred in pursuing defendants’ 

depositions. Defendants shall pay that sum to Adobe by December 11, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 103 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Christopher Quang Pham cpham@johnsonpham.com, cbrannan@johnsonpham.com, 

jvener@johnsonpham.com, mchaney@johnsonpham.com, ndrey@johnsonpham.com, 

ppham@johnsonpham.com

Hung Q Pham ppham@johnsonpham.com

Nicole L Drey ndrey@johnsonpham.com

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

La Boutique du Softwaretech, Inc.

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Software Tech Store

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Futur-Soft Solutions Corp.

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Pierre Francis

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 103 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 4