Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01162/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01162-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

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

LG CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HUANG XIAOWEN DBA TOPUUSHOP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

ORDER REQUESTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

REGARDING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

(ECF No. 136)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs LG Corporation, LG Electronics, Inc., and 

LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.’s (“LG”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Fee 

Mot.,” ECF No. 136). The Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took the matter 

under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 

144.) The Court has already determined that LG is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, 

(see ECF No. 127, at 25), and all that remains is a calculation of those fees. However, the 

Court is unable to fairly assess the reasonableness of LG’s attorneys’ hourly rates as 

presently briefed. Specifically, LG cites to the Laffey Matrix to support its claim that its 

attorneys’ rates “are commensurate with prevailing market rates.” (Fee Mot. 5 (citing Ex. 

1); see also Sommers Decl. ¶ 18, ECF No. 136-2 (relying on Laffey Matrix to show 

prevailing market rates across all firm types).) But the Court is not inclined, at this point,

Case 3:16-cv-01162-JLS-NLS Document 145 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

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

to rely on the Laffey Matrix in assessing the reasonableness of fees in this district. See, 

e.g., Ruiz v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., No. 5CV2125 JLS (KSC), 2017 WL 1421996, at *4 n.1

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017) (Sammartino, J.); Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 

F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]ust because the Laffey matrix has been accepted in the 

District of Columbia does not mean that it is a sound basis for determining rates elsewhere, 

let alone in a legal market 3,000 miles away.”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Brummell, No. 

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

reconsideration denied, No. 15CV2601-MMA (MDD), 2016 WL 4595140 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

2, 2016) (denying motion for attorneys’ fees because the plaintiff, relying on the Laffey 

Matrix, did “not demonstrate that the hourly rates requested are reasonable vis-à -vis the 

rates charged in ‘the forum in which the district court sits.’”); Perez v. Cozen & O'Connor 

Grp. Long Term Disability Coverage, No. 05CV0440DMSAJB, 2007 WL 2142292, at *2 

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007) (declining to use Laffey Matrix in its analysis because it “would 

be contrary to Ninth Circuit law”). While LG cites to Northern District of California cases 

applying the Laffey Matrix, LG fails to cite any Southern District of California cases 

approving of and using the Laffey Matrix. Nor does LG more generally discuss the 

reasonableness of the hourly rates as applied to this district. See, e.g., Camacho v. 

Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, when determining a 

reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court 

sits.”); Prison Legal News, 608 F.3d at 455 (“Here, the forum is the Northern District of 

California. The rates prevailing in that district for ‘similar services by lawyers of 

reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation’ thus furnish the proper measure 

of the reasonableness of the rates billed by PLN's attorneys.”). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01162-JLS-NLS Document 145 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1162 JLS (NLS)

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

Accordingly, LG SHALL FILE a supplemental brief, not to exceed ten pages, on 

or before thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed,

further supporting its argument that its attorneys’ fees are reasonable in this district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01162-JLS-NLS Document 145 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3