Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00378/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:0553 U.S.C.A. Cable Communications Policy Act

---

1

3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB

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 

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Fernando Zarate Flores, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

AND COSTS [ECF NO. 12] 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC.’s 

(“Plaintiff”) motion for a attorney fees and costs. The Court decides the matter on the 

papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons 

stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

On February 20, 2018, plaintiff filed its complaint against defendant alleging that, 

on May 6, 2017, defendant unlawfully intercepted, received, and exhibited the nationwide 

telecast of the Saul “Canelo” Alvarez v. Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. Super Middleweight 

Championship Fight Program (the “Program”) in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553, 

in addition to violating the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. 

seq. and included a conversion cause of action. (ECF No. 1.) On April 2, 2018, the 

Case 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB Document 16 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 2 

3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB

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

summons was returned showing that defendant was served by substitute service pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) on March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff 

requested an entry of default against defendant due to its failure to appear or otherwise 

respond to the summons and complaint on April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 6.) The next day, the 

Clerk of the Court entered default against defendant. (ECF No. 7.) On May 23, 2018, 

plaintiff filed the instant motion and submitted an affidavit in support of the motion on 

May 25, 2018. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) On September 6, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion 

and obtained default judgment against defendants pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. (ECF No. 

10, 11.) In the default judgment order, the Court awarded plaintiff $6,600 under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 605 and ordered plaintiff to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs within 14 days of 

that order’s entry. (See id.) Plaintiff then filed the instant motion pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

605 on September 20, 2018. 

DISCUSSION

 Given defendants’ absence thus far in this litigation, it is not surprising that no 

opposition was filed. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “that failure may constitute a 

consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” However, in 

awarding attorneys’ fees, the court is must first evaluate the reasonableness of those fees. 

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983). Plaintiff correctly points out its 

entitlement to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in this litigation under 

47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(iii). See 47 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(B)(3)(iii) (requiring a reasonable 

attorney’s fees award to the party establishing a 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) violation upon proper 

motion). 

 The courts utilizes the lodestar calculation method—the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation multiplied by the a reasonable hourly rate—to determine the 

amount of the attorney’s fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The is a strong presumption 

favoring the reasonableness of the lodestar amount. Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 

1115, 1119 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a court may adjust the lodestar figure when 

Case 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB Document 16 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 3 

3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB

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

various factors overcome the presumption of reasonableness. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-

34; see Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). 

A. Reasonable Hours 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration and accompanying billing statements itemizing the 

time the attorneys and legal support staff expended in this matter. See ECF No. 13. 

Plaintiff assert that the entire legal team spent 12.92 billable hours on this case: 6.97 hours 

by administrative staff; four (4) hours by the research attorney; and 1.95 hours by lead 

counsel. Id. at 6-9. Between May 20, 2017 and the filing of the instant motion, plaintiff’s 

attorneys and their staff have diligently litigated this matter by serving four demand letters, 

serving its complaint on defendant, performing case-related research, and filing relevant 

requests and motions. As such, the Court finds that all the hours expended by plaintiff’s 

counsel and their staff were reasonable. 

B. Reasonable Rate 

To determine the reasonableness of hourly rates, the court looks to the prevailing 

market rates in the relevant community for similar work performed by attorneys of 

comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). 

The relevant community is generally the forum in which the district court sits as opposed 

to where counsel is located. Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he 

burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence –in addition to the attorney’s 

own affidavits—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the 

community.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008). 

“Affidavits of the [requesting] attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the 

community, and rate determinations in other cases” suffice as satisfactory evidence. Id.

 Plaintiff requests hourly rates ranging from $100 per hour to $500 per hour for two 

administrative assistants, one independent research attorney and the requesting attorney, 

Thomas Riley. Although no opposition has been filed, the Court finds that each requested 

rate is reasonable in this district. The administrative assistants performed traditional 

paralegal work, such as file review, preparation and service of demand letters, pre- and 

Case 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB Document 16 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 4 

3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB

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

post-filing review, and public records research. Thus, the Court finds that the 

administrative assistant rate of $100 per hour is reasonable within this district. See 

Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. Smith, 2018 WL 2113238, at *4 (May 7, 2018) (finding a 

paralegal hourly rate of $125 reasonable). The unnamed independent research attorney has 

been practicing law for 23 years and assisting Mr. Riley’s office with commercial signal 

piracy claims for approximately ten years. Considering the length of the working 

relationship between the research attorney and Mr. Riley and the niche area of legal 

expertise required, the Court reasons that this attorney is more akin to a partner than an 

associate. The research attorney’s time is billed at $300 per hour. This rate is below other 

hourly rates approved by courts in this district. See Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber 

Research Int’l, LLC, 2016 WL 1573319, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. April 18, 2016) (finding partner 

rates of $425 per hour reasonable). Thomas Riley has also been practicing law for 23 years 

and his firm has specialized in civil prosecution of commercial signal piracy claims on 

behalf of promoters and closed-circuit distributors since December 1994. Mr. Riley’s 

federal civil litigation practice rate is $500 per hour. The Court finds that this amount 

aligns with the range of hourly rates ($450-$750) courts in this district have found to be 

reasonable. Obesity Research, 2016 WL 1573319, at *2; Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, 2015 

WL 5476254, at *3 (Sept. 15, 2015); Flowrider Surf, Ltd. V. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., 2017 

WL 2212029, at *3 (May 18, 2017). Accordingly, the Court finds that each requested rate 

is reasonable in this district. 

 For the above reasons, the Court awards plaintiff’s counsel an award of reasonable 

attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,872.00. 

C. Litigation Costs 

 As stated in the itemized bill, plaintiff accrued $1,148. 56 in costs during this 

litigation. See ECF No. 13 at 8. Plaintiff requests the Court award recovery of full costs, 

including investigative expenses, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(B)(iii). The statute reads, 

in pertinent part, that the court “shall direct the recovery of full costs . . .to an aggrieved 

party who prevails.” In light of the lack of opposition, it is unquestioned that plaintiff was 

Case 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB Document 16 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 5 

3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB

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

aggrieved who prevailed. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Paz-Padilla, 2013 WL 6002872, 

at *1 (Nov. 12, 2013) (“[A] plaintiff who obtains a default judgment may be considered a 

prevailing party for purposes of awarding fees and costs under [47 U.S.C.] § 605.”). 

Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to award recovery of full costs, including 

investigative expenses, in this case. As such, the Court awards plaintiff full cost in the 

amount of $1,148.56 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(B)(iii). 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. The Clerk of 

Court shall enter judgment in favor of plaintiff, who shall recover against Fernando Zarate 

Flores in the amount of $4,020.56. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 10, 2018 

 

Case 3:18-cv-00378-L-RBB Document 16 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5