1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, Case No. 23-cv-1862-BAS-DDL LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES v. AND COSTS (ECF No. 22) 14 GEOFFERY COLE; and ADMIRAL’S 15 EXPERIENCE, INC., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or 19 “G&G”) motion for costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons discussed 20 below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff, an international distributor of sports and 23 entertainment programming, initiated this action against Defendants Geoffery Cole 24 (“Cole”) and Admiral’s Experience, Inc. (“Admiral’s”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for 25 their alleged unauthorized and unlawful interception and exhibition of Plaintiff’s sports 26 and entertainment programming at Defendants’ commercial establishment, Chefs SD. 27 (ECF No. 1.) In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserted causes of action against Defendants for an 28 alleged violation of

and for a common-law claim of conversion. (Id.) 1 Defendants were served on March 1, 2024 (ECF Nos. 9, 10), but nevertheless failed to 2 appear or respond to the Complaint. 3 The Clerk of Court entered default against Defendants on Plaintiff’s motion (ECF 4 No. 13), and Plaintiff then moved for default judgment against Defendants and requested 5 leave to file a motion for costs and attorney’s fees (ECF No. 16). The Court granted 6 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to the statutory cause of action, but not for the 7 common-law claim of conversion, and granted Plaintiff’s request to file a motion for fees 8 and costs. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff then timely filed its present motion for costs and 9 attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants have not filed any opposition to the present 10 motion or otherwise appeared in this action. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 In its present motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the amount of $2,928.08 13 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,826.00. (ECF No. 22 at 7.) Plaintiff argues it is 14 entitled to this award because

requires courts to award costs and attorney’s 15 fees to a prevailing aggrieved party. (Id. at 3–4.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is an 16 aggrieved party under Section 605 and that it has prevailed in this action through default 17 judgment. See

(d)(6) (“[T]he term ‘any person aggrieved’ shall include any 18 person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including 19 wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming. . . .”). 20 In support of its request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff filed a 21 declaration of counsel, an itemized list of costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this matter, 22 as well as other relevant documentary evidence. (ECF No. 22-1.) Plaintiff’s costs include 23 investigative expenses ($770), process server fees ($1,703.38), FedEx shipping charges 24 ($52.70), and filing fees ($402). (Id. at ¶¶ 8–10 & Exs. 1–3.) Plaintiff’s enumerated costs 25 appear to have been necessary to the proper prosecution of this action, and Section 605 26 requires courts to “direct the recovery of full costs” to the prevailing party, 47 U.S.C. 27 § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court concludes these costs are 28 recoverable. 1 Before awarding Plaintiff its attorney’s fees, however, the Court must determine the 2 reasonableness of such fees.

(e)(3)(B)(iii). 3 When courts award attorney’s fees mandated by federal statute, they presumptively 4 apply the lodestar method for calculating those fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart,

, 5 433 (1983) abrogated on other grounds by Tex. State Tchrs. Ass’n. v. Garland Indep. Sch. 6 Dist.,

(1989). This method requires the court to determine if the number of 7 hours spent was reasonable and if the hourly rate charged by the attorney was reasonable. 8

The party seeking the award of fees must provide evidence “supporting the hours 9 worked and rates claimed.”

10 To determine a reasonable hourly rate, the court should consider the “experience, 11 skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees” and “be guided by the rate prevailing 12 in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, 13 and reputation.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,

(9th Cir. 14 1995). Courts in this District have held that a range of rates from $450.00 to $750.00 per 15 hour are reasonable for a senior partner. See G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Zarazua, 16 No. 20cv00816-LAB-MSB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2022) (approving 17 an hourly rate of $550 for Thomas Riley); see also Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. 18 Int’l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2016) 19 (approving hourly rates of $625 and $725 for partners); see also Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. 20 Smith, No. 16-cv-0070-BTM-JLB,

, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) 21 (“Courts in this district have held a range of rates from $450–750 per hour reasonable for 22 a senior partner in a variety of litigation contexts and specialties.”). Because counsel, 23 Thomas Riley, is a senior partner and his hourly rate of $600 falls within this range, the 24 Court finds it reasonable. 25 As for the number of hours billed, G&G provides sufficient evidence to establish 26 that G&G is entitled to $8,826.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. (ECF No. 22-1, Exs. 1–3); 27 see Hensley,

. 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs is GRANTED. (ECF No. 22.) The Court awards 3 || costs in the amount of $2,928.08 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,826.00. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: April 18, 2025 yatta Bahar □□ 7 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Aa