22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4af,MEMORANDUM Hendrick Jan Barto appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to RRLH, Inc. (“RRLH”) based on a finding that of Barto acted in bad-faith in violating the district court’s prior order prohibiting Barto from using RRLH’s trademark. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s award of attorney’s fees. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $29,730 in attorney’s fees to RRLH. Spending seventy-eight hours filing and prosecuting the contempt motion was reasonable in light of the distance between their attorney’s office and the courthouse, Barto’s unauthorized filings, and Barto’s opposition to the contempt motion. See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir.1986). The hourly rate RRLH’s attorneys charged was also reasonable given their expertise, qualifications, and the rates charged by comparable attorneys. See id. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4dc,

MEMORANDUM

Hendrick Jan Barto appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to RRLH, Inc. (“RRLH”) based on a finding that of Barto acted in bad-faith in violating the district court’s prior order prohibiting Barto from using RRLH’s trademark. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s award of attorney’s fees. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $29,730 in attorney’s fees to RRLH. Spending seventy-eight hours filing and prosecuting the contempt motion was reasonable in light of the distance between their attorney’s office and the courthouse, Barto’s unauthorized filings, and Barto’s opposition to the contempt motion. See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir.1986). The hourly rate RRLH’s attorneys charged was also reasonable given their expertise, qualifications, and the rates charged by comparable attorneys. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.