Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00462/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00462-0/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

18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

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.

ESTEBAN GARCIA PACHECO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COSTS AND 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

[ECF No. 13]

Before the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s motion for 

costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the 

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff, an international distributor of sports and 

entertainment programming, initiated this action against Defendants Esteban 

Garcia Pacheco, individually and d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria, 

and Alina Santamaria, individually and d/b/a Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo 

Birrieria, for their alleged unauthorized and unlawful inteception and exhibition of

Plaintiff’s sports and entertainment programing at Defendants’ commercial 

establishment, Birrieria El Primo a/k/a El Primo Birrieria. (ECF No. 1.) In its

Case 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

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

complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of action against Defendants for alleged 

violations of 47 U.S.C. § 553, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et 

seq., and for conversion. (Id.) Defendants were served on April 17, 2018 (ECF 

Nos. 4-5), but nevertheless failed to appear or respond to the complaint. 

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default against Defendants 

by the Clerk. (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk entered default against Defendants the 

following day. (ECF No. 7.) On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff moved for default 

judgment against Defendants and requested leave to file a motion for costs and 

attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 10.) On March 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion for default judgment as to all causes of action asserted as well as leave to 

file a motion for costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 11.) The Clerk entered default 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants the following day. (ECF No. 

12.) On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed its present motion for costs and attorney’s 

fees. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants have not filed any opposition to the present 

motion or otherwise appeared in this action.

DISCUSSION

In its present motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the amount of 

$2,519.83 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,007.00. (ECF No. 13-1, at 5.) 

Plaintiff argues it is entitled to this award because 47 U.S.C. § 605 requires courts 

to award costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing aggrieved party. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff further argues it is an “aggrieved party” under Section 605 because it “had 

the exclusive nationwide distribution rights to” the intercepted programming. (Id.

at 2-3 (citing ECF No. 10-4, ¶ 3); see also ECF No. 10-4 ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 (closed-circuit 

television license agreement for the intercepted programming).) The Court agrees

on both points. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(d)(6) (“[T]he term ‘any person aggrieved’ 

shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication 

by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable 

programming . . . .”); 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) (“The court-- . . . shall direct the 

Case 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

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

recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an 

aggrieved party who prevails.”).

In support of its request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff 

filed a declaration of counsel, an itemized list of costs and attorney’s fees incurred 

in this matter, as well as other relevant documentary evidence. (ECF No. 13-2.) 

Plaintiff’s costs include investigative expenses ($1,935.00), process server fees 

($184.83), and filing fees ($400.00). (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 9, 10 & Exs. 1–3.). Given all 

costs for which reimbursement is sought by Plaintiff appear to be necessary to the 

proper prosecution of this action and Section 605’s requirement that courts “direct 

the recovery of full costs” to the prevailing party, 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii)

(emphasis added), the Court concludes that these costs are recoverable.

Before awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees, however, the Court must 

determine the reasonableness of such fees. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). To do 

so, the Court will “apply the ‘lodestar’ method to determine what constitutes a 

reasonable attorney's fee . . . . then adjust the lodestar upward or downward based 

on a variety of factors.”1 Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). “Under the 

 

1 The factors that may be considered by the Court include: “(1) the time and labor 

required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill 

requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other 

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, 

(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client 

or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the 

experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the 

case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and 

(12) awards in similar cases.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1209 n.11 (citations omitted). 

“However, if [the Court] has taken any of these factors into account in either the 

reasonable hours component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar 

calculation, then it should not again reduce the lodestar.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

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

lodestar method, the district court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing 

party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate” to arrive 

at the “lodestar figure.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). In doing so, 

the Court “may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request, and exclude 

those hours for which it would be unreasonable to compensate the prevailing 

party[,]” because, for example, they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise 

unnecessary.” Id. at 1203 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The 

reasonable hourly rate is based upon the “prevailing market rates in the relevant 

community,” taking into consideration “the experience, skill, and reputation of the 

attorney or paralegal.” Id. at 1205-06 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Here, counsel for Plaintiff attests that his administrative assistant billed 7.32 

hours at a rate of $100.00 per hour, his research attorney billed 4.5 hours at a rate 

of $300.00 per hour, and he billed 1.85 hours at a rate of $500.00 per hour, for a 

total attorney’s fee incurred of $3,007.00 on 13.67 billable hours, for a blended 

hourly rate of approximately $219.97 per hour. (ECF No. 13-2 at ¶¶ 2, 6, 8 & Ex. 

1.) Upon review of the detailed hourly billing records (id. at Ex. 1), the Court is 

satisfied that all 13.67 billable hours for which reimbursement is sought were 

reasonably necessary to the proper prosecution of this action. Further, the Court 

is satisfied that the blended hourly billing rate of $219.97 is reasonable for this 

geographic area in light of counsel’s experience, reputation, and abilities. (See id. 

at ¶¶ 3-5.) Moreover, the Court concludes that no adjustment is necessary to the 

lodestar figure given that many of the relevant factors are neutral on the facts of 

this matter and the lodestar figure is commensurate with the attorney’s fees awards 

in similar cases in this District. See, e.g., G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. 

Beltran, et al., 3:18-cv-02099-CAB-LL, ECF No. 13 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) 

($3,143.32 for 14.43 hours); G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Sanchez, et al., 

3:18-cv-02096-WQH-KSC, ECF No. 17 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2019) (awarding 

$2,752.00 for 12.92 hours of legal work); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Paz-Padilla, 

Case 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS

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

et al., No. 3:12-cv-02228-GPC-WMC, ECF No. 18 (S.D. Cal. 2013) ($2,448.75 for 

13.9 hours). Accordingly, the Court concludes that an award of $3,007.00 in 

attorney’s fees to Plaintiff is reasonable and warranted.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s 

fees (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and the Court awards Plaintiff $3,007.00 in 

attorney’s fees and $2,519.83 in costs against Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated July 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00462-BTM-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5