Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07963/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07963-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LOGICAL PLUS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

___________________________/

No. C 06-7963 SI (WDB)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND COSTS

On January 14, 2008, the undersigned held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause

the Court issued on December 21, 2007. The Order to Show Cause required both

defendant Joseph Chang and his attorney, Philip Lo, to attend the hearing on January 14,

2008, in person and therein to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for (1)

failing to lodge an updated Confidential Settlement Conference Statement, (2) failing to

appear in person at the settlement conference that was duly scheduled for December 18,

2007, (3) failing to timely file a written request to appear at the settlement conference by

telephone instead of in person, and (4) misleading the Court about whether plaintiff

objected to the last-minute request by defendants to appear by phone. Henry H.

Gonzalez, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiff; Philip Lo, Esq. appeared on his own

behalf and, purportedly, on behalf of defendants. Without seeking or being granted

permission, and without justification shown, defendant Joseph Chang did not appear at

the show cause hearing.

Case 3:06-cv-07963-SI Document 58 Filed 02/04/08 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

1 The amount awarded herein differs from the amount requested by plaintiff’s counsel

because of his apparent error in calculating the amount of fees billed to Symantec for appearing at the

hearing on January 14, 2008, which should have been $422.50, rather than $585, based on the 1.3 hours

spent preparing for and participating in the hearing. See Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4.

2

The Court directed Mr. Gonzalez to submit a declaration setting forth plaintiff’s

attorney’s fees and expenses in connection with attending the further settlement

conference, and attorney’s fees in connection with the show cause hearing. By

declaration dated January 17, 2008, Mr. Gonzalez states that plaintiff was billed at his

hourly rate of $325 for 8.4 hours for preparing for, traveling to, and attending the

December 17, 2007, settlement conference; 1.3 hours preparing for and participating at

the show cause hearing; and 0.4 hours for preparing the declaration regarding attorney’s

fees. Defendant did not file an opposition to the Gonzalez declaration.

Information obtained from the law firm representing plaintiff, Baute and Tidus,

demonstrates that Mr. Gonzalez is a Harvard Law School graduate, has been a member

of the California bar since 2000, and has focused his practice on commercial litigation

and white-collar criminal matters. We have sufficient experience with the prevailing

market rates in the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area, where Mr. Gonzalez practices,

to conclude that this billing rate is reasonable for someone of his level of experience. We

also find that the tasks performed by counsel were reasonably undertaken. We therefore

award plaintiff attorney’s fees for a total of 10.1 hours, in the amount of $3,282.501

 in

connection with defendant’s and defense counsel’s unexcused failure to appear at the

further settlement conference on December 18, 2007.

Mr. Gonzalez further states that plaintiff was billed $268.80 for his round trip

airfare from Burbank to Oakland to appear at the further settlement conference. We find

this amount to be a reasonable travel expense, and award plaintiff $268.80 in expenses

related to defendant’s and defense counsel’s unexcused failure to appear.

We therefore award plaintiff attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of

$3551.30 against defendant Joseph Chang and defense counsel Philip Lo, jointly and

severally, as a sanction for their unexcused failure to appear at the further settlement

Case 3:06-cv-07963-SI Document 58 Filed 02/04/08 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

conference. This award shall be paid to plaintiff’s counsel by no later than February 18,

2008.

At this time, we make no recommendation to the District Court concerning other

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2008

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07963-SI Document 58 Filed 02/04/08 Page 3 of 3