Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01347/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 - 08cv1347- IEG - BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRACTIONAL VILLAS, INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1347 - IEG - BLM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

AND COSTS

[Doc. No. 19]

vs.

PEPPER Q. RODGERS, an individual;

NORTH CAROLINA FRACTIONALS, an

unknown entity; CHRISTOPHER FRISCO,

an individual; PIED PIXEL DESIGN, an

unknown entity; DOES 1-25,

Defendant.

On July 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging copyright infringement, federal unfair

competition violations, and California unfair competition violations. (Doc. No. 1.) The Clerk of

Court entered default and, on December 24, 2008, the Court granted Default Judgment against

Defendants in the amount of $150,000 plus attorneys’ fees. On February 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed its

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. No. 19.) Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions, and

for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Copyright Act, “[i]n any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may

allow the recovery of full costs . . . . the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the

prevailing part as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. When deciding whether to award attorneys’

Case 3:08-cv-01347-IEG-BLM Document 21 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv1347- IEG - BLM

fees, the Court may consider the following nonexclusive factors: “(1) the degree of success obtained,

(2) frivolousness, (3) motivation, (4) objective unreasonableness (legal and factual), and (5) the need

to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1221

(9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Although a finding of willfulness is not a prerequisite to a fee

award under the Copyright Act, ‘willful infringement is an important factor favoring an award of fees

. . . .’” Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Coldwater Creek, Inc., 2009 WL 160235 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20,

2009) (quoting Historical Research v. Cabral, 80 F.3d 377, 379 (9th Cir.1996)).

Once a party shows entitlement to attorney’s fees, the Court calculates the attorneys’ fees

award using a two-step process. “To determine what fee should be awarded, the court must first

determine the ‘lodestar,’ which is the number of hours reasonably expended on litigation multiplied

by a reasonable rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir.

1990). Five factors bear on the Court’s determination of the reasonable hours and reasonable rate:

“(1) the novelty and complexity of the issues; (2) the special skill and experience of counsel; (3) the

quality of representation; (4) the results obtained; and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement.”

Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 364 (9th Cir.1996). The Court then adjusts the lodestar

amount based on “other considerations.” Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

The Court previously determined Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees; therefore, the sole

issue is the amount of the attorneys’ fees award. Plaintiff requests $8,709.00 for attorneys’ fees and

$1,646.34 for costs. To assess reasonableness of the fees, the Court employs the lodestar analysis.

Plaintiff must demonstrate the 31.8 hours it expended on the case were reasonable. The time

spent was appropriate because the issues involved were not overly novel or complex. Further, the

special skill and experience of counsel and quality of representation enabled a speedy resolution.

Additionally, counsel obtained strong results in a limited amount of time: the Court awarded both

statutory damages and injunctive relief. Finally, Counsel provided legal services under a contingency

fee agreement. Weighing these factors, the Court finds 31.8 hours was a reasonable expenditure of

hours. Having submitted no contrary evidence, Defendants have not carried their burden of rebuttal,

which “requires submission of evidence . . . challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours

Case 3:08-cv-01347-IEG-BLM Document 21 Filed 04/30/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 08cv1347- IEG - BLM

charged.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir.1992). 

Plaintiff must also submit evidence the rate sought is reasonable. “The prevailing market rate

is indicative of a reasonable hourly rate.” Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir.1987). Plaintiff seeks hourly fees ranging from $225 to $285 for attorney work and $95 for

paralegal work. In Brighton Collectibles, the court approved a fee ranging from $90 to $210 per hour

for paralegal work and $125 to $625 per hour for attorney work. 2009 WL 160235 at *4. In light of

the skill and experience of counsel, the quality of the representation, and the results obtained, the

Court concludes the requested rates are reasonable. 

Adjustment of the lodestar is unnecessary. “A ‘strong presumption’ exists that the lodestar

figure represents a ‘reasonable fee,’ and therefore, it should only be enhanced or reduced in ‘rare and

exceptional cases.’” Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986)). Finding

no rare or exceptional circumstance, the Court declines to adjust the lodestar figure.

 Finally, after reviewing Plaintiff’s bill of costs, the Court finds the costs are reasonable. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $10,355.34 – representing

$8,709.00 for attorney’s fees and $1,646.34 for costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01347-IEG-BLM Document 21 Filed 04/30/09 Page 3 of 3