Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00465/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00465-1/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 

18cv465 JM (BGS) 

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. 

MELQUIS UMANA AGUILAR; and 

RIBSAN FOODS, INC., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 18cv465 JM (BGS) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS 

 Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC moves for attorneys’ fees and costs 

following entry of default judgment against Defendants Melquis Umana Aguilar, a/k/a 

Melquis O. Umana-Aguilar, individually and d/b/a Wings Empire and Ribsan Foods, Inc., 

an unknown business entity d/b/a Wings Empire. (Doc. No. 14.) Having carefully 

considered the motion and court record, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff contracted for the exclusive, nationwide commercial distribution 

rights to Saul Alvarez v. Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. Super Middleweight Championship Right 

Program and associated under-card (“the Program”), telecast on Saturday, May 6, 2017. 

(Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶16.) Plaintiff entered into agreements with sub-licensees to 

Case 3:18-cv-00465-JM-BGS Document 16 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

18cv465 JM (BGS) 

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

broadcast the Program for a fee. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Defendants were not authorized to 

broadcast the Program, but an investigator observed and documented, in a sworn affidavit, 

the exhibition of the Program at Wings Empire. (Doc. No. 10-3.) The investigator 

observed five televisions displaying the Program in an establishment with a capacity for 

approximately 30 people, with 7–15 people present. (Id.) The investigator rated the 

establishment as “good,” and no cover charge was imposed to enter. (Id.) 

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed its complaint in this action, alleging (1) violation 

of 47 U.S.C. § 605, (2) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, (3) conversion, and (4) violation of 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Plaintiff served Defendants 

with the complaint and summons on March 21, 2018, and April 4, 2018. (See Doc. Nos. 

4, 7.) On April 4, 2018, Defendants filed a joint motion for an extension of time to answer 

the complaint. (Doc. No. 5.) The court granted the motion, giving Defendants until May 5, 

2018, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendants never 

responded to the complaint. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court entered default against 

Defendants on June 13, 2018. (Doc. No. 9.) On July 31, 2018, the court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion for default judgment against Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s claims under 

47 U.S.C. § 605 and for conversion. (Doc. No. 13.) 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) provides that the court “shall direct the recovery of full 

costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.” 

To determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, this court must use the lodestar method. Ferland 

v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1152 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations 

omitted). See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “The ‘lodestar’ is 

calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended 

on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 

363 (9th Cir. 1996). 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:18-cv-00465-JM-BGS Document 16 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

18cv465 JM (BGS) 

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

DISCUSSION 

 As the prevailing party, Plaintiff requests an award for reasonable fees and costs 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605. 

1. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees 

 Counsel requests a fee award of $3,796 for work performed by counsel (Thomas R. 

Riley), an unnamed research attorney, and an administrative assistant. 

a. Reasonable Hours

 Counsel represents that Mr. Riley billed 3.41 hours, the administrative assistant 

billed 8.91 hours, and the research attorney billed 4 hours. The court reduces these hours 

in light of the boilerplate filings in this case and for the reasons discussed below. 

 The fee applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the number of hours spent 

were “reasonably expended” and that counsel made “a good faith effort to exclude from 

[the] fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 

461 U.S. at 434. “[C]ounsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying 

the hours claimed to have been expended.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 

1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 The court finds 3.01 hours billed by Mr. Riley were reasonable. The time Mr. Riley 

spent reviewing communications to and from the court is reduced by 0.4 hours. All 4 hours 

billed by the research attorney are reasonable. The court finds 0.67 hours billed by the 

administrative assistant were reasonable. The court excludes 1.35 hours from the 

administrative assistant’s time for duplicative tasks performed by Mr. Riley and the 

administrative assistant. For example, on June 26, 2017, both Mr. Riley and the 

administrative assistant spent 0.25 hours on “Initial File Review.” (Doc. No. 14-2, Exh. 1 

at 6.) The administrative assistant’s time is reduced by 6.89 hours for time spent on clerical 

tasks, such as filing and service of documents. See Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 

921 (9th Cir. 2009) (“When clerical tasks are billed at hourly rates, the court should reduce 

the hours requested to account for the billing errors.”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Corona, 

No. 1:12-CV-01844-LJO, 2014 WL 1513426, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014), report and 

Case 3:18-cv-00465-JM-BGS Document 16 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

18cv465 JM (BGS) 

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

recommendation adopted, No. 1:12-CV-01844-AWI, 2014 WL 1767691 (E.D. Cal. May 

2, 2014).1 

a. Reasonable Rate 

 Mr. Riley bills at an hourly rate of $500, an unnamed research attorney bills at an 

hourly rate of $300, and the administrative assistant bills at an hourly rate of $100. 

“In determining a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be guided by the 

rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable 

skill, experience, and reputation.” Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1210-11. Generally, the relevant 

community for determining the prevailing market rate is the forum in which the district 

court sits. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). 

 Counsel does not reference the rates of any other attorneys performing similar work 

in this district or elsewhere. Courts have calculated a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Riley 

between $350 and $500. See, e.g., J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Marini, No. 1:16-CV-0477-

AWI-JLT, 2018 WL 2155710, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2018) (awarding Mr. Riley a $350 

hourly rate); Segura, 2018 WL 1868271, at *8 (awarding Mr. Riley a $500 hourly rate).2

 

The court finds an hourly rate of $425 for Mr. Riley, $200 for the research attorney, and 

$100 for the administrative assistant reasonable. 

                                                                

1

 The court excludes all hours for entries where clerical services were block billed with 

other services as the court cannot determine what amount of time was spent on non-clerical 

tasks. See Fischer v. SJB–P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). 

2

 Other courts have declined to award any fee award as a result of Mr. Riley’s failure to 

support his hourly rate in the forum district. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Diaz, No. 12-

CV-1106-W WMC, 2014 WL 1600335, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) (declining to award 

attorneys’ fees and discussing other cases declining to award fees because of Mr. Riley’s 

failure to substantiate his hourly rate); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Brummell, No. 

15CV2601-MMA (MDD), 2016 WL 3552039, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (declining 

to award attorneys’ fees when Mr. Riley failed to substantiate his fee application with 

documentation of the reasonable rate of other attorneys or billing records). The court 

declines to do so, but finds a reduced hourly rate reasonable, consistent with Mr. Riley’s 

awarded rate in other cases. 

Case 3:18-cv-00465-JM-BGS Document 16 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

18cv465 JM (BGS) 

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

 In sum, Plaintiff is awarded $2,146.25 in attorneys’ fees ($1,279.25 for Mr. Riley, 

$800 for the research attorney, and $67 for the administrative assistant). 

2. Costs 

Plaintiff requests $1,209.01 in costs for investigative expenses, courier charges, 

filing fees, and service of process fees. The court finds $577 in costs reimbursable. 

 Plaintiffs request $600 in pre-filing investigative fees, citing to a case in which the 

court noted that the detection of the unlawful interception of broadcasts was a difficult task. 

See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Cubides, No. CIV. A. H-08-608, 2008 WL 2756401, at *2 

(S.D. Tex. July 15, 2008). But the court in Cubides did not award costs for investigative 

fees. Most courts in this circuit decline to award costs for pre-filing investigative fees 

under § 605. See, e.g., Marini, 2018 WL 2155710, at *3; Brummell, 2016 WL 3552039, 

at *2 (collecting cases). The court denies Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of 

investigative fees. The court also denies Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of $32.01 

in courier fees as Plaintiff does not submit any documentation in support of this expense. 

The $400 filing fee and $177 service of process fees are reasonable and reimbursable. 

CONCLUSION 

 Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in part. Counsel is awarded 

$2,146.25 in attorneys’ fees and $577 in costs, for a total of $2,723.25. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 10, 2018 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00465-JM-BGS Document 16 Filed 12/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5