Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:613

1 'O' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SNOW JOE, LLC, C V 20-00587-RSWL-RAO x ORDER re: Plaintiff’s 12 Plaintiff, Supplemental Request for 13 v. Attorneys’ Fees [61] 14 LINEMART INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Snow Joe, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought the 19 instant Action against Defendants Linemart, Inc.; 20 Linemart NJ, Inc.; Shenzhen Sailvan Network Technology 21 Ltd.; and Shenzhen Sailvan Ecommerce Co., Ltd. 22 (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting false advertising 23 claims arising out of Defendants’ sale of pressure 24 washers. The parties thereafter settled, and the Court 25 issued an injunction prohibiting Defendants from 26 continuing their false advertising activity. 27 On July 18, 2022, the Court found Defendants in 28 contempt of the Amended Permanent Injunction and the 1 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:614

1 parties’ Settlement Agreements [60]. The Court also

2 granted Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and

3 ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing to 4 establish the proper amount of fees to be awarded. 5 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Supplemental 6 Request for Attorneys’ Fees (“Request”) [61]. Having 7 reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this 8 Request, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the 9 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request and AWARDS Plaintiff a 10 total of $24,033.79 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 11 I. BACKGROUND1 12 On November 7, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants 13 entered into a Settlement Agreement, which required 14 Defendants to submit HOMDOX-branded pressure washers for 15 testing and to remove inaccurate listings of those 16 pressure washers. Pl.’s Mot. for Contempt (“Mot.”) Ex. 17 1 (“Original Agreement”), ECF No. 55-3. Pursuant to 18 this agreement, the Court issued a Permanent Injunction 19 on November 17, 2021, enjoining Defendants from falsely 20 advertising their pressure washers. See generally 21 Permanent Inj., ECF No. 49. 22 The parties then entered into an Amended Settlement 23 Agreement on February 17, 2022, which expanded the scope 24 of the settlement to regulate Defendants’ sale of other 25

26 1 The facts underlying this Action are recounted in detail in the Court’s Order holding Defendants in civil contempt. See 27 Order re: Pl.’s Mot. for Contempt & Enforcement of Settlement (“Contempt Order”) 2:6-4:11, ECF No. 60. The Court includes here 28 only the facts relevant to this Request. 2 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:615

1 types of pressure washers. Decl. of Christopher Q. Pham

2 in Supp. of Mot. Ex. 2 (“Am. Settlement Agreement”), ECF

3 No. 55-4. Accordingly, on February 18, 2022, the Court 4 entered an Amended Permanent Injunction. See generally 5 Am. Permanent Inj., ECF No. 54. 6 On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendants a 7 notice of breach of the Amended Settlement Agreement. 8 Mot. Ex. 6, ECF No. 55-9. The parties engaged in meet- 9 and-confer sessions on March 11, March 21, and April 13, 10 2022. Mot. 4:6-9. The parties then held a fourth meet- 11 and-confer session on April 27, 2022. Id. at 4:6-9. 12 Plaintiff filed its Motion for Contempt [55] on April 13 28, 2022. The Court granted [60] the Motion on July 18, 14 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Request [61] on July 15 29, 2022, to which Defendants did not object. 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 A. Legal Standard 18 “Attorneys’ fees can be recovered only to the 19 extent they are reasonable.” SAS v. Sawabeh Info. 20 Servs. Co., No. CV1104147MMMMANX, 2015 WL 12763541, at 21 *4 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (citing In re SNTL Corp., 22 F.3d 826, 842 (9th Cir. 2009)). Courts routinely use 23 the lodestar method to determine the reasonableness of 24 attorneys’ fees. See Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. 25 of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009); City of 26 Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992) (“[T]he 27 ‘lodestar’ figure has . . . become the guiding light of 28 [the court’s] fee-shifting jurisprudence.”). The 3 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:616

1 lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the hours

2 reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable

3 hourly rate. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 4 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). 5 B. Analysis 6 Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of 7 $23,108.50 for 73.08 hours of legal work performed in 8 this case since the entry of the Amended Permanent 9 Injunction on February 18, 2022. See generally Pl.’s 10 Supp. Req. for Att’y Fees, ECF No. 61. This includes 11 15.7 hours of work by Partner Christopher Pham, who 12 bills at a $525 hourly rate; 32.5 hours of work by 13 Associate Marcus Chaney, who bills at a $400 hourly 14 rate; and 24.88 hours of work by Support Staff Member 15 Lee Ann Sowers, who bills at a $75 hourly rate. Id. at 16 2:2-13. The Court will examine in turn the 17 reasonableness of the rates charged and the hours 18 expended by Plaintiff’s counsel. 19 1. Reasonable Hourly Rates 20 Fee awards must be computed using “an hourly rate 21 that is based on the prevailing market rates in the 22 relevant community.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1200. The 23 relevant community is that in which the court sits. 24 Schwarz v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 25 906 (9th Cir. 1995). In determining whether rates are 26 reasonable, “[t]he Court [may] also draw[] on precedent 27 from other courts, its knowledge of the prevailing 28 community rates, and its evaluation of the quality of 4 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:617

1 the work performed by counsel.” Toyo Tire & Rubber Co.

2 Ltd v. Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., No.

3 SACV1400054CJCJPRX, 2018 WL 702851, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 4 Jan. 24, 2018) (citation omitted). 5 Here, Pham is a partner with over twenty years of 6 experience. In support of Pham’s $525 hourly rate, 7 Chaney declares that Pham “is a top-rated intellectual 8 property litigation attorney who has consistently 9 attained a high degree of peer recognition and 10 professional achievement.” Decl. of Marcus F. Chaney in 11 Supp. of Req. (“Chaney Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 61-1. After 12 reviewing the rates that have been accepted as 13 reasonable for partners with similar experience in 14 intellectual property cases within the Central District 15 of California, the Court finds Pham’s rate of $525 per 16 hour to be reasonable. See Hansen Cold Storage Constr. 17 v. Cold Sys., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-07617-SB-MAA, 2022 WL 18 1199271, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022) (finding a 19 $730 hourly rate to be reasonable for a partner with 30 20 years of experience); Notorious B.I.G. LLC v. Yes. 21 Snowboards, No. CV 19-1946-JAK (KSx), 2021 WL 6752168, 22 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021) (finding a $730 hourly 23 rate to be reasonable for a partner with fifteen years 24 of experience); Tee Turtle, LLC v. Abmask, No. 2:21-CV- 25 03572-CBM-E(x), 2021 WL 4812947, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 26 8, 2021) (finding a $755 hourly rate to be reasonable 27 for a partner with twenty years of experience). 28 Chaney is a senior associate with over twelve years 5 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:618

1 of experience in intellectual property litigation, who

2 also has had purported success in this area. Chaney

3 Decl. ¶ 5. The Court also find Chaney’s hourly rate of 4 $400 to be reasonable based on the prevailing rates in 5 the Central District for associates with similar 6 experience. See Rolex Watch USA Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds 7 Inc., No. CV 02-1089 PSG (VBKx), 2021 WL 4786889, at *4 8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021) (setting the reasonable hourly 9 rate at $552.50 for an associate with five years of 10 experience); Ubisoft, Inc. v. Kruk, No. CV 20-478-DMG 11 (ASx), 2021 WL 3472833, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2021) 12 (accepting a $410 hourly rate as reasonable for an 13 associate with four years of experience). 14 Finally, Sowers is a support staff member who was 15 in charge of conducting investigations regarding 16 Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Agreements 17 and the Amended Permanent Injunction. Chaney Decl. ¶ 6. 18 The Court also finds her hourly rate of $75 per hour to 19 be reasonable. See Rolex Watch, 2021 WL 4786889, at *4 20 (setting the reasonable rate for litigation support 21 staff at $150 per hour and collecting cases where 22 similar rates have been accepted); Hansen Cold Storage 23 Constr., 2022 WL 1199271, at *5 (same). 24 2. Reasonable Time Expenditures 25 A district court should only award fees for hours 26 that were reasonably expended on the litigation. 27 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (“Counsel 28 . . . should make a good faith effort to exclude from a 6 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:619

1 fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or

2 otherwise unnecessary.”). “The fee applicant bears the

3 burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in 4 the litigation and must submit evidence in support of 5 those hours worked.” United States v. $28,000.00 in 6 U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1107 (9th Cir. 2015) 7 (quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th 8 Cir. 1992)). 9 Plaintiff has provided a billing statement, which 10 clearly outlines the tasks performed by Pham, Chaney, 11 and Sowers related to the Motion for Contempt. See 12 Chaney Decl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 61-2. The billing statement 13 also details the time required for each task, recorded 14 in six-minute intervals. Id. It is clear from this 15 record that Chaney performed the bulk of the work for 16 this Motion in drafting the memorandum and conducting 17 various research, while Pham supervised by reviewing 18 drafts and corresponding with opposing counsel. Id. 19 Sowers’ sole task was to investigate Defendants’ Amazon 20 listings to determine whether Defendants were complying 21 with the Settlement Agreements and the Amended Permanent 22 Injunction. Id. 23 Based on these records, the Court finds that the 24 time billed by Plaintiff’s counsel was reasonable. 25 Defendants do not object to the number of hours 26 Plaintiffs have asserted. All of the work recorded 27 appears closely related to Plaintiff’s “attempt to 28 enforce compliance” with the Settlement Agreements and 7 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:620

1 Amended Permanent Injunction. Toyo Tire & Rubber Co.,

2 Ltd. v. Hong Kong Tri Ace Tire Co., 281 F. Supp. 3d 967,

3 993 (C.D. Cal. 2017). Moreover, none of the billed time 4 appears to be overly duplicative or excessive. See In 5 re Toys R Us-Del., Inc. FACTA Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 6 450 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“The time records do not show, for 7 example, that they spent inordinate amounts of time 8 reviewing or editing each other’s work.”). 9 Plaintiff’s counsel also worked efficiently by 10 utilizing its support staff to conduct the pre-filing 11 investigation into Defendants’ noncompliance. See 12 Billion Motors, Inc. v. 5 Star Auto Grp., No. 8:19-cv- 13 00945-SVW, 2020 WL 8373396, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 14 2020) (“Although Plaintiff’s motion for contempt 15 required substantial pre-filing investigation into 16 Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff's counsel conducted this 17 investigation in an efficient manner by utilizing a 18 paralegal rather than an attorney.”); cf. Rolex Watch, 19 2021 WL 4786889, at *5 (finding counsel’s billed hours 20 unreasonable where a majority of the pre-filing 21 investigation and contempt motion writing process was 22 billed at a partner’s hourly rate). 23 Finally, courts have accepted similar amounts of 24 time as reasonable for legal work related to a motion 25 for contempt. See Billion Motors, 2020 WL 8373396, at 26 *2 (finding 66 hours to be reasonable for preparing a 27 motion for contempt); Rolex Watch, 2021 WL 4786889, at 28 *5 (finding 125 hours to be reasonable for preparing 8 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:621

1 contempt motion, replying to defendant’s opposition, and

2 preparing for three in-person hearings). For these

3 reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s billed 4 time of 73.08 hours to be reasonable. 5 3. Lodestar Calculation 6 As discussed above, the Court finds both the hourly 7 rates and the number of hours expended by Plaintiff’s 8 counsel to be reasonable. Accordingly, the fee award is 9 equal to the total cost of Pham’s 15.7 hours of work at 10 a $525 hourly rate, Chaney’s 32.5 hours of work at a 11 $400 hourly rate, and Sowers’ 24.88 hours of work at a 12 $75 hourly rate. The Court therefore AWARDS Plaintiff 13 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $23,108.50 for work 14 related to the Motion for Contempt. The Court also 15 GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for costs and AWARDS 16 Plaintiff $925.29 for costs associated with the Motion 17 for Contempt. See Bernardi v. Yeutter, 951 F.2d 971, 18 976-77 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming an award of costs 19 associated with the filing of a motion for contempt). 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 Case 2:20-cv-00587-RSWL-RAO Document 63 Filed 08/16/22 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:622

1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS

3 Plaintiff’s Request and AWARDS Plaintiff a total of 4 $24,033.79 in attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 5 the Motion for Contempt. Defendants are ordered to pay 6 this amount to Plaintiff. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: August 16, 2022 _____/_s_/ R__on_a_ld_ _S_.W__. _Le_w________

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

10 Senior U.S. District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10