Summary
finding hourly rates ranging from $460 to $710 reasonable in a trademark infringement case resulting in default judgment
Summary of this case from Michael Grecco Prods. v. Trekmovie.ComOpinion
5:21-cv-02059-JWH-SPx
08-03-2022
WESTGATE MFG, INC.; and MIKE VERNICA, Plaintiffs, v. NORCO WHOLESALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC.; CORONA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC INC.; and REYNALDO MEJIA, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 24]
JOHN W. HALCOMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs Westgate MFG, Inc. and Mike Vernica for default judgment. The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the papers filed in support, and in the absence of any opposition,the Court orders that the Motion is GRANTED, as set forth herein.
Pls.' Mot. for Default J. (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 24].
The Court considered the following papers: (1) Compl. (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1]; and (2) the Motion (including its attachments).
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint commencing this action in December 2021, asserting seven claims for relief:
• patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271);
• false marking (35 U.S.C. § 292);
• federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114);
• false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a));
• unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200);
• false advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500); and
• common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion in March 2022, and it is unopposed.
B. Factual History
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
Plaintiff Vernica is the sole inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,780,461 (the “ '461 Patent”), which claims a new and improved electrical ground clamp. Plaintiff Westgate possesses the exclusive rights to produce, market, and sell products covered by the '461 Patent and to enforce the
'461 Patent. Westgate sells a grounding clamp that is covered by the '461 Patent (the “Licensed Product”).
Complaint ¶¶ 20 & 21.
Id. ¶ 20.
Id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiffs believe that Defendant Reynaldo Mejia is the president of (1) Defendant Corona Wholesale Electric Inc., a suspended company; and (2) the company that stands in its place, Defendant Norco Wholesale Electric Supply Inc. Defendants sold grounding clamps that infringe the '461 Patent (the “Accused Product”) on Amazon.com. The Accused Product is a lower-quality near-copy of Westgate's Licensed Product, incorporating the same patented inventions. Defendants have sold the Accused Product with Westgate's registered WESTGATE Mark.
Id. ¶¶ 24-31.
Id. ¶ 32.
Id. ¶¶ 24 & 32-36. See Complaint, Ex. A (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,410,387 (the “WESTGATE Mark”)) [ECF No. 1-1].
Id. ¶ 24.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A court may issue a default judgment following the entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). This Court's Local Rules require an applicant for default judgment to submit a declaration that conforms to the requirements of Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sets forth the following information:
(1) When and against which party the default was entered;
(2) The identification of the pleading to which default was entered;
(3) Whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator or other representative;
(4) That the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. § 521) does not apply; and
(5) That notice of the application has been served on the defaulting party, if required by F. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).L.R. 55-1.
The decision to enter default judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 1980). In Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit set forth the following factors for a court to consider in determining whether to grant default judgment:
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.Id. at 1471-72. Upon the entry of default, the well-pleaded factual allegations of a complaint are deemed true; however, allegations pertaining to the amount of damages must be proven. See TeleVideo Systems Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987). A plaintiff must provide evidence of her damages, and a court may rely on the declarations submitted by the plaintiff or may order a full evidentiary hearing. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). Further, the damages sought must not “differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move this Court to enter default judgment against Defendants with respect to all but one of Plaintiffs' seven claims for relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek (1) the issuance of a permanent injunction against Defendants; and (2) an award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. To obtain that relief, Plaintiffs must meet the procedural requirements described above and must establish that, on balance, the Eitel factors weigh in their favor.
Because Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages, Plaintiffs do not seek e8n2t7ry-2o8f default judgment with respect to their false marking claim. Motion
Id. at 1:15-19.
A. Procedural Requirements
Plaintiffs have satisfied the procedural requirements for the entry of default judgment. Pursuant to Rule 55, Plaintiffs did not petition for a default judgment until after the Clerk entered Defendants' defaults. Additionally, Plaintiffs' moving papers include a declaration by Plaintiffs' counsel that provides the information required by the Local Rules.
Cf. Default by Clerk as to Norco Wholesale Electric Supply, Inc.; Corona Wholesale Electric, Inc.; and Reynaldo Mejia (entered on January 21, 2022) [ECF No. 20], with Motion (filed on March 10, 2022).
See Decl. of Kyle W. Kellar (the “Kellar Declaration”) [ECF No. 24-2] ¶¶ 2-4.
B. Eitel Factors
1. Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice if the Court does not enter a default judgment in their favor. Because Defendants have not appeared in this action, a default judgment is the only means by which Plaintiffs may obtain relief. Absent a default judgment by this Court, Plaintiffs would be “be forced to continue the litigation even though no party has filed an answer or a claim.” United States v. Approximately $194,752 in U.S. Currency, 2011 WL 3652509, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of the entry of a default judgment. See Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp., 992 F.Supp.2d 998, 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice absent the entry of a default judgment because of the defendant's unwillingness to cooperate and defend against the claim).
2. Substantive Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims
The second and third Eitel factors concern the merits of Plaintiffs' substantive claims and the sufficiency of their pleadings, respectively. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. “The Ninth Circuit has suggested that these two factors require that a plaintiff ‘state a claim on which the [plaintiff] may recover.'” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Here, the six claims for relief on which Plaintiffs seek default judgment are sufficiently stated and meritorious. The second and third Eitel factors thus favor the entry of a default judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' claims.
a. Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271)
“To state a claim of patent infringement, a plaintiff must allege at the very least ownership of the allegedly infringed patent and infringement of the patent by the defendant, e.g., by selling the allegedly infringing product.” Tech. Licensing Co. v. Noah Co. LLC, 2012 WL 3860758, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012). Here, the Complaint alleges that Vernica “is the sole inventor and owner of the '461 Patent” and that Westgate is the exclusive licensee of the '461 Patent with the right to enforce the '461 Patent. The Complaint also alleges that “Defendants, either jointly or separately, have previously and are currently making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in interstate commerce grounding clamps that infringe the '461 Patent.” Defendants offered for sale or sold the Accused Product on Amazon.com under the name “CLAMP GROUNDING 1/2 to 3/4 in SCR” and with ASIN number B07RGMBCRM.” Plaintiffs have, therefore, successfully stated a claim for relief for patent infringement upon which they can recover.
Complaint ¶ 20.
Id. at ¶ 24.
Id.
b. Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
To state a claim for trademark infringement or false designation of origin, Plaintiffs must establish that Vernica owns a “valid, protectable mark” and that Defendants are using a “confusingly similar mark.” See Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc., 497 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)); see also Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 1999); AK Futures LLC v. Smoke Tokes, LLC, 2021 WL 5359019, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021) (false designation of origin claim analyzed using same elements as trademark infringement claim). “The core element of trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion, i.e., whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of the products.” Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs have made such a showing. First, they have shown that Vernica owns a valid, protectable mark-the WESTGATE Mark. See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1047 (holding that registration of a mark in the principal register of the USPTO is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of plaintiff's exclusive right to use the mark on the goods and services specified in the registration).
Second, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants' use is likely to cause customer confusion-“a fairly straightforward demonstration given Plaintiffs' evidence of Defendants' alleged counterfeiting.” See Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nelson, 2021 WL 5033486, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021). In counterfeiting cases, the Court assumes a likelihood of confusion when the offending mark is counterfeit or virtually identical to a protected mark and is used on an identical product or service. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2011); Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1056 (“In light of the virtual identity of marks, if they were used with identical products or services likelihood of confusion would follow as a matter of course.”). Here, the mark on the Accused Product is virtually identical to the WESTGATE Mark protected mark.
See Motion 2:1-5.
Plaintiffs have thus demonstrated that Defendants have sold and marketed, through Amazon, grounding clamps falsely bearing the WESTGATE Mark. Therefore, Plaintiffs have successfully stated claims for relief for trademark infringement and false designation of origin upon which they can recover.
c. Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
State law claims of unfair competition and claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 are “substantially congruent” to claims made under the Lanham Act. Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1994). Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims under the Lanham Act (as discussed above), the Court also determines that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief for unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 upon which they can recover. See AK Futures LLC v. Smoke Tokes, LLC, 2021 WL 5359019, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021) (“Because the Court concluded that AK Futures sufficiently stated claims under the Lanham Act, the Court also determines that AK Futures stated claims for unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.”).
d. False Advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500)
To state a claim for false advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants “made a statement, in connection with the sale of personal property, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.3d at 1176. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used the WESTGATE Mark in connection with the sale of grounding clamps without Westgate's consent. See id. Therefore, Plaintiffs have successfully stated a claim for relief for false advertising upon which they can recover. See id.
Complaint ¶¶ 24 & 33-36.
e. Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Lastly, Plaintiffs assert a claim for relief for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Ninth Circuit “has consistently held that . . . actions pursuant to [the California Unfair Competition Law] are ‘substantially congruent' to claims under the Lanham Act.” Cleary, 30 F.3d at 1262-63. Thus, “[b]y sufficiently alleging its claims under the Lanham Act, [Plaintiffs have] also adequately alleged facts in support of [their] claims under common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.” See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Dye, 2018 WL 6118443, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018). Plaintiffs have, therefore, successfully stated a claim for relief for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition upon which they can recover.
3. Sum of Money at Stake
The fourth Eitel factor examines the amount of money at stake in the action relative to the gravity of the defendant's conduct. PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1176. “Default judgement is disfavored where the sum of money at stake is too large or unreasonable in relation to defendant's conduct.” Seiko Epson Corp. v. Benedychuk, 2021 WL 2786663, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021) (quotations and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of the entry of a default judgment. See PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1176.
Motion 8:27-28.
4. Possibility of Dispute Concerning Material Facts
Upon entry of default, all well-pleaded factual allegations are deemed true, except those pertaining to damages. See TeleVideo, 826 F.2d at 917; Elektra Entm't Group Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 393 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2005) (“Because all allegations in a well-pleaded complaint are taken as true after the court clerk enters default judgment, there is no likelihood that any genuine issue of material fact exists.”). Because Defendants have neither appeared in this action nor asserted any defenses, it is unlikely that disputes regarding material facts will arise. Accordingly, this factor favors the entry of a default judgment.
5. Whether Default Was Due to Excusable Neglect
Under the sixth factor, a court must consider whether a defendant's default may have been due to excusable neglect. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. This factor favors the entry of a default judgment when the defendant has been properly served or when the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant is aware of the action. See Wecosign, Inc. v. IFG Holdings, Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Here, Plaintiffs properly served Defendants with the Summons and Complaint. Defendants have had ample time to appear in this action, but they have failed to do so.
See, e.g., Proofs of Service [ECF No. 11-13].
The Court concludes that Defendants' defaults were not the product of excusable neglect. This factor thus favors the entry of a default judgment.
6. Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits
Generally, default judgments are disfavored because “[c]ases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472 (citing Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1985)). However, when a defendant fails to appear and respond, default judgment is appropriate. See Wecosign, 845 F.Supp.2d at 1083. Here, Defendants' failures to appear or defend against Plaintiffs' claims make a decision on the merits impracticable. Therefore, this factor favors entering default judgment.
In sum, the Eitel factors favor granting default judgment against Defendants. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to the entry of default judgment in Plaintiffs' favor.
C. Requested Relief
Under Rule 54(c), a default judgment “must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). A plaintiff must “prove up” the amount of damages. Aifang v. Velocity VIII, L.P., 2016 WL 5420641, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016). Here, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against Defendants and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The requested relief does not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the Complaint.
Motion 13:1-7; see generally Proposed Order [ECF No. 24-4].
See Complaint 16:1-26.
1. Permanent Injunction
Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants from further selling the Accused Product and infringing the '461 Patent.
See Proposed Order 1:10-24.
“A plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against a defendant when it can demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of the hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Benedychuk, 2021 WL 2786663, at *6 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). “The Court's ‘decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court.'” Id. (quoting eBay, 547 U.S. at 391).
This Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims merit injunctive relief. First, Plaintiffs allege that Westgate has suffered the irreparable harms of “lost sales” and damage to its goodwill. See Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (loss of revenue is an irreparable harm). Although the extent of Plaintiffs' lost sales is unclear, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm because Defendants admit by their default that they have willfully infringed the '461 Patent and the WESTGATE Mark. See AK Futures, 2021 WL 5359019, at *4 (“Defendant admits by its default that it continues to willfully infringe on plaintiff's copyrighted property, causing plaintiff ongoing and irreparable harm.” (brackets omitted)). Moreover, although Plaintiffs are not presently aware of Defendants' continued sale of the Accused Product or use of the WESTGATE Mark, it is not “absolutely clear” that Defendants' wrongful acts have permanently ceased. See PepsiCo, 238 F.Supp.2d at 1177-78 (“[I]n the absence of opposition by the non-appearing defendant, it cannot be said that it is ‘absolutely clear' that Defendant's allegedly wrongful behavior has ceased and will not begin again.”).
Complaint ¶¶ 72 & 73; Motion 16:15-17:3.
See Complaint, Exs. C & D [ECF No. 1-1] (showing Amazon.com reviews of Defendants' counterfeit products, indicating sales).
Motion 16 n.5 (“Defendant did not voluntarily cease its infringing activities. It was only after Plaintiffs moved Amazon.com to remove Defendants' infringing listing that the infringements ceased.”).
Second, monetary damages will not sufficiently compensate Plaintiffs for their injury caused by Defendants' infringing sales because Defendants' failure to appear and participate in this litigation “has given the court no assurance that Defendant's infringing activity will cease.” See Benedychuk, 2021 WL 2786663, at *4 (quoting Jackson v. Sturkie, 255 F.Supp. 1096, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (quotations omitted) (granting permanent injunction in default judgement copyright case)).
Third, the balance of the hardships largely favors Plaintiffs. Because Defendants “admit to willfully infringing” the '461 Patent and the WESTGATE Mark through the entry of default, an injunction will prevent Defendants only “from doing what they are already prohibited from doing.” See id. If Defendants continue their infringing activities, however, the injunction will provide substantial protection for Plaintiffs. See id.
Fourth, a permanent injunction would not disserve the public interest; it would instead protect the '461 Patent and the WESTGATE Mark. “The purpose of protecting trademarks,” after all, “is to avoid consumer confusion and to ensure that a producer reaps the rewards of having developed desirable products.” Id. (citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 164 (1995)). Similarly, the “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” a patented invention is the very right ensured by a patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 153. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from infringing the '461 Patent and the WESTGATE Mark would uphold those goals.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction.
2. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $22,939 under the U.S. Patent Act and the Lanham Act. In both patent and trademark infringement actions, “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 35 U.S.C. § 285. “Exceptional” cases are those “where the acts of infringement can be characterized as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1023 (9th Cir. 2002). In determining whether an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate in both patent and trademark infringement cases, “the Court must consider several ‘nonexclusive factors,' such as (1) frivolousness; (2) motivation; (3) objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and in the legal components of the case); and (4) the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Talent Mobile Development, Inc. v. Headios Group, 382 F.Supp.3d 953, 959 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Sun-Earth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2016)).
Id. at 13:5-7 & 18:23-19:28.
First, this Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. By granting Plaintiffs' instant Motion for default judgment, the Court has determined that-as alleged in the Complaint-Defendants' infringement of the '461 Patent was “willful” and “exceptional” and that Defendants' infringement of the WESTGATE Mark was “deliberate” and “fraudulent.” The entry of default judgment thus sufficiently establishes Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys' fees. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1023 (“In this case, by entry of default judgment, the district court determined, as alleged in RIO's complaint, that RII's acts were committed knowingly, maliciously, and oppressively, and with an intent to . . . injure RIO.” (quotations and citation omitted)); see also Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A]ll factual allegations in the complaint are deemed true, including the allegation of Poof's willful infringement of Andrew's trademarks. This default sufficiently establishes Andrew's entitlement to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act.”).
See Complaint ¶¶ 44-46, 58, & 79.
Second, this Court determines that Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $22,939 is reasonable. District courts generally calculate awards for attorneys' fees using the “lodestar” method. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the lodestar method, a court considers the work completed by the attorneys and multiplies “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.” Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The reasonable hourly rate for an attorney is determined by the “prevailing market rate of the relevant community”-that is, the forum in which the district court sits. Carson v. Billings Police Dep't, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2006). The moving party has the burden to produce evidence that the rates and hours worked are reasonable. See Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, 6 F.3d 614, 623 (9th Cir. 1993). Although the lodestar figure is-in most cases- “presumptively a reasonable fee award,” the court “may, if circumstances warrant, adjust the lodestar to account for other factors which are not subsumed within it.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978 (citations omitted). For example, hours may be reduced by the court “where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; [or] if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiffs seek an award of $22,057 in attorneys' fees for 42 hours of work at the following hourly rates: 6.6 hours worked at $710 per hour for attorney Constantine Marantidis; 2.8 hours worked at $650 per hour for attorney G. Warren Bleeker; and 32.6 hours worked at $460 per hour for attorney Kyle W. Keller. Plaintiffs also request $882 in costs, representing the fees to serve Defendants. The Court finds that those hourly rates are reasonable and that the lodestar does not include fees for any hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. See Halsey v. Colonial Asset Mgmt., 2014 WL 12601015, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2014). The Court, therefore, concludes that the lodestar amount of $22,057 is reasonable. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' costs were reasonably incurred and likewise grants the requested $882 in costs. See id. at *6.
See Motion, Ex. E [ECF No. 24-3].
Kellar Declaration ¶ 19.
See id. at ¶¶ 13-21.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to the requested amount of attorneys' fees and costs.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED forthwith to lodge a Proposed Judgment (and to email a Word version of that document to JWH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov) for the Court's consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.