1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 BASKIN-ROBBINS FRANCHISING LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-05476-BLF et al., 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 10 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES v. AND COSTS 11 ALAN A. CHUN, [Re: ECF 33] 12 Defendant. 13 14 This case arises from allegations of breach of a franchise agreement, trademark 15 infringement, and unfair competition. See generally Compl. ¶¶ 1, 36–58, ECF 1. Alan A. Chun 16 (“Defendant”) has failed to appear, and in July 2019 this Court granted in part and denied in part 17 Baskin-Robbins and BP IP LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Default Judgment. See 18 Mot. for Default J., ECF 19; Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. 19 (“Prior Order”) 2–3, 16, ECF 29; Order Entering Permanent Inj. Against Def. Alan Chun (“Order 20 Entering Inj.”), ECF 30; Judgment, ECF 31. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for 21 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is 22 GRANTED. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“BR”) grants franchises across the United States. 25 Mot. 2; Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. In doing so, BR licenses its trademarks to franchisees so that they can 26 operate under the Baskin-Robbins System.1 Mot. 2; Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. In July 2017, Defendant 27 1 entered into a franchise agreement (the “Agreement”) with Plaintiffs. Mot. 2–3; Compl. ¶¶ 4, 18– 2 20, Exh. 1. Under the Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay all damages, interests, costs, and 3 expenses upon default. Mot. 3; Compl. ¶ 21, Exh. 1, at § 14.4.4. Eventually Defendant did 4 default, and Plaintiffs commenced this action in September 2018. Mot. 3; Compl. ¶ 26. 5 On July 16, 2019, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for 6 Default Judgment against Defendant and entered judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of 7 $125,423.61. Prior Order; Order Entering Inj.; Judgment. Pursuant to

(a), the 8 Court determined that an award of attorneys’ fees and costs was warranted and instructed 9 Plaintiffs to move for them separately. Prior Order 13–14. 10 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, along with 11 supporting documentation. Mot.; Affidavit of Barry G. Stratford in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion 12 for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Stratford Decl.”), ECF 34; Bill of Costs, ECF 35, 36. Plaintiffs 13 seek a total of $34,478.25, which includes $33,620.00 in attorneys’ fees and $858.25 in costs. 14 Mot. 1. Because the Court already approved an award for fees and costs, the only issue is whether 15 Plaintiffs’ claimed amount is appropriate. See Prior Order 13–14. 16 II. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 17 In calculating awards for attorneys’ fees, courts apply the “lodestar” method to the facts of 18 each case. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2008); see also Hensley 19 v. Eckerhart,

(1983). The lodestar amount is presumptively reasonable. See 20 Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Center, LLC,

(9th Cir. 2018). “The ‘lodestar’ is 21 calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the 22 litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael,

(9th Cir. 23 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g,

(9th Cir. 1997). Once calculated, the 24 lodestar amount may be further adjusted based on other factors not already subsumed in the initial 25 lodestar calculation. Morales, 96 F.3d at 363–64, 363 nn.3–4 (identifying factors) (citing Kerr v. 26 Screen Guild Extras, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of 27 Burlington v. Dague,

(1992)). 1 Plaintiffs on this case: (1) Charles Vincent Maloney (“Maloney”), (2) Barry G. Stratford 2 (“Stratford”), and (3) Catherine N. Grech (“Grech”).2 Stratford Decl. ¶¶ 7a–c. 3 Maloney is a partner with thirty (30) years’ experience handling various complex 4 commercial litigation matters. Stratford Decl. ¶ 7a. Although he typically bills at over $800 per 5 hour, for this matter he discounted his rate to $475 per hour. Stratford Decl. ¶ 9. Maloney spent a 6 total of 2 hours reviewing Stratford’s and Grech’s work. See Stratford Decl., Exh. A. 7 Stratford is a counsel with six (6) years’ experience doing business litigation. Stratford 8 Decl. ¶ 7b. He bills at over $600 per hour, but for this action he also cut his rate to $475 per hour. 9 Stratford Decl. ¶ 9. Stratford worked 50.4 hours on this matter, spending most of his time drafting 10 the Motion for Default Judgment and this Motion. See Stratford Decl., Exh. A. 11 Grech is an associate with five (5) years’ experience, primarily doing employment law but 12 also handling trademark infringement work. Stratford Decl. ¶ 7c. Her usual billing rate is 13 upwards of $550 per hour, but for this matter she charged $375–$475 per hour. See Stratford 14 Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. A. Grech worked 19.6 hours on the matter, spending most of her time preparing 15 and filing the Complaint, conferring with Plaintiffs, and working on the Motion for Default 16 Judgment. See Stratford Decl., Exh. A. 17 The attorneys’ work is summarized in this chart: Attorney Title Years Rate Hours Amount 18 Maloney Partner > 30 $475 2 $950 19 Stratford Counsel ≈ 6 $475 50.4 $23,940 20 Grech Associate ≈ 5 $375–$475 19.6 $8,730 TOTAL 72 hours $33,620 21 As explained below, this Court finds that both these hourly rates and number of hours 22 expended are reasonable given similar work performed in the community, and therefore GRANTS 23 Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the attorneys’ fees. 24

25 26 27 2 It appears that either no paralegals worked on the case or Plaintiffs were not billed for paralegal 1 A. Reasonableness of Rates 2 When determining an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate, courts weigh the “experience, 3 skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees,” and compare the requested rates to prevailing 4 market rates of the relevant community. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles,

, 1210– 5 11 (9th Cir. 1986), op. am. on denial of reh’g,

(9th Cir. 1987); see also Blum v. 6 Stenson,

, 895 n.11 (1984). The relevant community is typically the forum in which 7 the district court sits. Camacho,

. To determine the prevailing market rate, courts 8 may rely on attorney affidavits as well as “decisions by other courts awarding similar rates for 9 work in the same geographical area by attorneys with comparable levels of experience.” Trujillo 10 v. Orozco, No. 5:17-cv-00566-EJD,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018); see also 11 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1990). 12 Here, the relevant community is the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs submitted a 13 detailed itemization of attorneys’ fees and costs. See generally Stratford Decl. Both Maloney 14 (partner with 30 years’ experience) and Stratford (counsel with 6 years’ experience) charged an 15 hourly rate of $475. Stratford Decl. ¶¶ 7a-b, 9. Grech (associate with 5 years’ experience) 16 charged an hourly rate of $375–$475. Stratford Decl. ¶¶ 7c, 9, Exh. A. Plaintiffs assert that these 17 hourly rates “are reasonable and comparable to the fees generally charged by attorneys with 18 similar experience, ability, and reputation for work on similar matters.” Stratford Decl. ¶ 8. 19 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. In examining rates for similar work (business and 20 commercial litigation) and experience (associates, counsels, and partners), courts in the Northern 21 District have found rates in the same range as those charged by the attorneys here to be reasonable. 22 See, e.g., Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, No. 17-cv-06059-EMC,

2183295, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“[D]istrict courts in Northern California have found 24 that rates of $475–$975 per hour for partners and $300–$490 per hour for associates are 25 reasonable.”); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA,

, at 26 *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (finding reasonable rates for Bay Area attorneys of $475–$975 for 27 partners and $300–$490 for associates); Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger,

, 455 1 a partner and $425 for a fifth-year associate). 2 Thus, the Court finds that the attorneys’ rates here fall within the range determined to be 3 reasonable given the prevailing market in the Northern District of California and the attorneys’ 4 skill and experience. 5 B. Reasonableness of Hours 6 The Court next considers the reasonableness of the hours expended. A court cannot 7 “uncritically” accept a plaintiff’s representations; rather, it must assess the reasonableness of the 8 hours requested. Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1984). In making 9 this determination, the court can reduce hours when documentation is inadequate, or when the 10 requested hours are redundant, excessive, or unnecessary. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433–34. The 11 moving party bears the burden of providing relevant documentation. Id. at 433. Upon examining 12 the documentation, the court should then exclude from the initial lodestar calculation any hours 13 that are not reasonably expended. Id. at 434. 14 Here, from August 25, 2018, through July 31, 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsels expended 72 hours 15 on this matter. See Mot. 7; Stratford Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. A, at 1, 7. They spent approximately 8 hours 16 on the Complaint, 44 hours on the Motion for Default Judgment, 11 hours on this Motion, and 10 17 hours managing the case (e.g., client conferencing, fact-finding, reviewing documents, and 18 strategizing). See Stratford Decl., Exh. A. Seventy-two hours is within the range of what 19 attorneys have spent in other similar default judgment cases. See, e.g., Century 21 Real Estate, 20 LLC v. Heritage Real Estate, Inc., No. C 06-7809 WDB,

, at **1, 3, 7–8, 10 21 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2007) (granting nearly all fees billed for 112.5 hours of work); Craters & 22 Freighters v. Daisychain Enterprises, C-09-04531 CW (JCS),

, at **1, 11–12 23 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2010) (granting fees for approximately 140 total hours billed in a case alleging 24 copyright and trademark infringement and unfair business practices); Century 21 Real Estate LLC 25 v. RealtyComp.com, No. C-14-4774 EMC,

, at **1–3, 8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 26 2015) (finding that spending approximately 37.4 hours on a similar case was reasonable and 27 necessary); Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC v. DC Property & Loans, Inc., No. C 13-4732 1 5474584 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2014). 2 Furthermore, the briefs submitted were thorough and clear, explicating why Baskin- 3 Robbins was entitled to relief for the five causes of action. See generally Compl.; Mot. for 4 Default J.; Mot. The Complaint provided various exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ claims. See 5 generally Compl. And the Motion for Default Judgment included several declarations as well as a 6 Reply. See generally Decl. of Barry Stratford, ECF 20; Decl. of Gary Zullig, ECF 21; Decl. of 7 Derick Smith, ECF 22; Reply, ECF 23. This Court finds that the kinds of tasks counsel performed 8 were reasonably undertaken to secure Plaintiffs a $125,423,61 judgment in this case. See 9 Judgment ¶ 4; see also Heritage Real Estate, Inc.,

, at **7–8 (finding that 10 “preparing the complaint, preparing applications for writs of attachment, responding to filings by 11 the individual defendants, obtaining default, drafting and filing the instant [default judgment] 12 motion, and corresponding with clients, the court, and/or defendants,” were “reasonably 13 undertaken”); Kerr,

(considering the amount involved and results obtained when 14 determining appropriate fee awards). 15 Additionally, the attorneys already “excluded a certain amount of time to eliminate any 16 items that could be construed as duplicative or nonessential.” Stratford Decl. ¶ 5. Upon reviewing 17 the attorneys’ fee report, their described work does not appear redundant, excessive, or 18 unnecessary. See generally Stratford Decl., Exh. A; see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433–34. Thus, 19 the Court finds no reason to further reduce the lodestar amount based on the hours expended on 20 this matter. 21 In sum, the Court finds that the work was billed at a reasonable rate given prevailing 22 market norms in the Northern District of California. And the hours spent on this case were 23 reasonable in light of the work accomplished and the skill and expertise of the attorneys. 24 Accordingly, the Court does not find it necessary or appropriate to adjust the lodestar amount. 25 Thus, this Court GRANTS the Motion as to the attorneys’ fees. 26 III. COSTS 27 Plaintiffs seek “limited costs incurred as a result of this litigation in the amount of 1 warranted. See Prior Order 13-14. For this Motion, Plaintiffs provided a Bill of Costs and 2 || evidentiary documents such as receipts, invoices, and bank statements verifying charges for filing 3 and service of process fees. See generally Bill of Costs. The following table reflects these costs: 4 Attorney 5 Filing & Docket Fees 9/6/2018 $400.00 Service of P F 9/7/2018 $145.05 ervice of Process Fees 6 9/10/2018 $313.20 7 $858.25 8 Plaintiffs’ requested costs are reasonable, especially in light of other similar cases. See 9 Craters & Freighters,

, at *12 (awarding $615.50 in costs for filing and 10 service of process fees); Heritage Real Estate, Inc.,

, at *10 (recommending 11 $1,687.77 in costs for filing and service fees, photocopying, and a private investigator’s fee). 12 || Thus, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for $858.25 as to the costs.

13 || Iv. ORDER

v 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall recover

15 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $33,620.00 and costs in the amount of $858.25, for a total of 16 || $34,478.25.

17 Plaintiffs may submit a proposed amended judgment to reflect this award.

Z 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: October 17, 2019 kom hh hammer 22 □□ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28