Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00203/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00203-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

-1- 17cv203-MMA (JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LINLOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE NATIONAL RIFLE 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv203-MMA (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 3344 

Plaintiff James Linlor (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action 

against Defendant the National Rifle Association of America (“NRA” or “Defendant”) 

alleging Defendant violated California Civil Code Section 3344 by addressing and 

mailing membership renewal notices and other marketing material to Plaintiff and his 

minor child. See Doc. No. 1. On May 8, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint with prejudice. See Doc. No. 17. The Court deferred ruling on 

Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs to give Plaintiff an opportunity to 

respond. See id. On May 18, 20171

, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to 

                                               

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees 

and costs one day after the applicable May 17, 2017 deadline. See Doc. No. 17 at 15. However, in the 

interests of justice, and in light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court deems Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00203-MMA-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 -2- 17cv203-MMA (JMA)

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

Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Doc. No. 20. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s request 

for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

DISCUSSION

In diversity cases, as is the case here, “the availability of attorney’s fees is 

governed by state law.” Bonner v. Fuji Photo Film, 2008 WL 410260, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 12, 2008). California Civil Code Section 3344 provides that “[t]he prevailing party 

in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.” Cal. 

Civ. Code § 3344(a) (emphasis added). Thus, attorney’s fees and costs are mandatory 

under Section 3344. See Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 607, 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 

2006) (“The mandatory fee provision of section 3344, subdivision (a) leaves no room for 

ambiguity.”). Defendant requests $18,255.00 in attorneys’ fees and $545.61 in costs. 

See Doc. No. 9 at 2. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request for fees and costs asserting 

that Defendant “actively worked to increase [its] alleged costs,” and that as a result, 

“[Defendant] should bear the costs of [its] own decisions, which Plaintiff dutifully 

attempted to avoid and/or mitigate.” Doc. No. 20 at 3. Plaintiff requests the Court deny 

Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs “and to permit the parties to leave each 

other alone going forward.” Id. 

 California courts utilize the lodestar method to calculate an award of attorneys’ 

fees. Ketchum v. Moses, 17 P.3d 735, 742 (Cal. 2001). The Court calculates the lodestar 

by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate 

prevailing in the community for similar work. See id. at 741. The Court may then adjust 

the lodestar figure in light of a number of relevant factors specific to the case. See 

Serrano v. Priest, 569 P.2d 1303, 1316-17 (Cal. 1977). 

                                               

response as timely. See Minor v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc., 205 F. Supp. 3d 1081, 1086 (N.D. 

Cal. 2016) (declining to strike the pro se plaintiff’s opposition as untimely noting that the plaintiff is 

“representing himself pro se, which entitles him to a certain degree of leniency[.]”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00203-MMA-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 -3- 17cv203-MMA (JMA)

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

 Defendant’s submissions are insufficient to support an award of attorneys’ fees. 

First, defense counsel does not support their request for attorneys’ fees with 

contemporaneous billing records. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Napuri, 2013 WL 

4428573, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (“Absent the submission of detailed 

contemporaneous time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended on 

this case, the Court gives little weight to the figures provided by Plaintiff.”); see also 

Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Erkan, 2010 WL 3463630, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010) 

(denying motion for attorney’s fees where the plaintiff failed to attach “actual billing 

records.”). Second, defense counsel does not demonstrate that the hourly rates requested 

are reasonable vis-à-vis the rates charged in “the forum in which the district court sits.” 

Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2013). Defendant 

provides only the unsupported declarations of attorneys Mr. Michel and Mr. Dale in 

support of its request for fees. However, “the fee applicant bears the burden of 

establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended 

and hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Finally, Defendant 

does not submit any evidence of hourly rate determination in other similar cases in the 

Southern District of California setting the rate for the three attorneys seeking fees in this 

case. As such, Defendant has not met its burden and is therefore not entitled to an award 

of attorneys’ fees. 

 With respect to costs, Defendant requests $545.61, consisting of service of process, 

legal research, postage and delivery, and filing fees, in addition to fees incurred for 

making copies of public records. See Doc. No. 9-2, Exh. A. “Under California law, 

where a statute such as § 3344 authorizes an award of costs but is silent as to which costs 

are to be awarded, the Court must look to Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, which sets 

forth those costs that may or may not be recovered in a civil action.” Bonner, 2008 WL 

410260, at *7. Section 1033.5 provides for recovery of certain costs, including filing 

fees, expenses associated with travel for depositions, service of process, and photocopies 

of exhibits that “were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” Cal. Code Civ. P. 

Case 3:17-cv-00203-MMA-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 -4- 17cv203-MMA (JMA)

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

1033.5(a). Section 1033.5, however, precludes recovery of other expenses including 

postage, telephone, and photocopying charges for non-exhibits. Cal. Code Civ. P. 

1033.5(b). The Court declines to award Defendant costs for postage and copying fees, as 

both charges are for non-exhibits. Further, the Court declines to award Defendant costs 

for legal research, as legal research is not mentioned in § 1033.5. See Cal. Code Civ. P. 

1033.5(c)(4) (“Items not mentioned in this section and items assessed upon application 

may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion.”). Accordingly, the Court will award 

Defendant costs in the amount of $493.90, representing Defendant’s service of process 

and filing costs. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court awards Defendant $493.90 

in costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00203-MMA-JMA Document 22 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4