Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05114-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beebell Inc.
Defendant
Ennova Research SRL
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENNOVA RESEARCH SRL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEEBELL INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05114-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

MONETARY SANCTIONS AND 

CONTEMPT

Re: Dkt. No. 69

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed a motion for monetary sanctions 

and contempt against Defendant Beebell Inc. (Dkt. No. 69.) After the filing of the motion, 

Defendant's counsel moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 74.) On August 28, 2018, the Court granted 

the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 78.) In that order, the Court explained that because Defendant 

is a corporation, it is not able to appear in federal court except by counsel, and therefore gave 

Defendant 45 days to find substitute counsel. (Id. at 3.)

As of the date of this order, Defendant has not obtained substitute counsel. Accordingly, 

the Court finds it appropriate to rule on Plaintiff's motion for monetary sanctions and contempt. 

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff's counsel provides no information in support of his 

request for attorney's fees. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel fails to provide any time records, 

evidence of costs, or information about his experience that would be relevant to determining 

whether a $425 hourly rate is reasonable. See Chalmers v. City of L.A., 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th 

Cir. 1986) ("In determining reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time 

records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended"). The Court therefore ORDERS 

Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing, by November 7, 2018, regarding the amount of 

attorney's fees, which must include sufficient documentation to allow the Court to determine if the 

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 85 Filed 10/30/18 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

hours, costs, and hourly rate are sufficient. Failure to provide sufficient documentation may result 

in the Court reducing the amount requested. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) 

("Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award 

accordingly"); eADGEAR, Inc. v. Liu, No. 11-cv-5398-JCS, 2012 WL 2367805, at *20 (N.D. Cal. 

June 21, 2012) (recommending the denial of attorney's fees where counsel failed to provide time 

sheets or affidavits in support of their request).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-05114-KAW Document 85 Filed 10/30/18 Page 2 of 2