Innovative Sports Management v. Costanza Ruiz Arias
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. d/b/a Integrated Sports Media v. Costanza Ruiz Arias
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-01371
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Innovative Sports Management v. Costanza Ruiz Arias, Judge Donato granted the fee request in part, awarding $2,770 in fees and $612.16 in costs.
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. d/b/a Integrated Sports Media received an award of $2,770 in attorney’s fees and $612.16 in costs. Attorney Thomas Riley’s requested compensation was reduced, and the defendants were subject to the fee judgment following the default judgment.
What happened
Innovative Sports Management, Inc. d/b/a Integrated Sports Media v. Jeanette Costanza Ruiz Arias, et al. followed a default judgment against the defendants. The plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas Riley, submitted a revised request for attorney’s fees and costs after an earlier request was denied without prejudice because of billing problems.
The court reduced the request because it included duplicated entries, clerical work billed as attorney work, time spent on an order to show cause in another case, and pre-filing investigation costs. It also reduced the time claimed for a research attorney’s work on a motion the court found virtually identical to other motions.
Judge James Donato granted the revised request in part. The court awarded the plaintiff $2,770 in attorney’s fees and $612.16 in costs, and stated that judgment would be entered separately.
The detailed version
- Innovative Sports Management v. Costanza Ruiz Arias · No. 3:23-cv-01371
- James Donato
- July 11, 2024
Background
The court had previously entered a default judgment against the defendants. Plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas Riley, then moved for attorney’s fees and costs. The court denied that first request without prejudice because it contained numerous duplicative time entries, billed clerical tasks at attorney rates, and included fees connected to an order to show cause issued in another case.
Riley filed a revised motion and apologized for the errors. The revised motion requested $4,532.75 in fees, slightly more than the original request of $4,518.00. The revised submission still included fees related to the other case and combined time entries for Riley and his administrative assistant in a way the court viewed as inflating Riley’s attorney bill.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that clerical work, including filing pleadings, may not be billed as attorney time. It found that the revised invoice appeared to pass off clerical work as attorney work. The court also stated that Riley could not recover overhead costs or the $725 requested for pre-filing investigation.
The court held Riley to his original sworn invoice, which claimed 2.75 hours at $600 per hour. It deducted $180 for the 0.3 hours Riley spent on the order to show cause in another case, leaving $1,470 in recoverable fees for Riley’s work.
The court also allowed fees for a research attorney who was said to have worked six hours at $325 per hour. It reduced that request by $650 for two hours because the court found that five hours was too long for preparing a motion virtually identical to other motions filed by Riley’s firm in the district. The resulting award for the research attorney was $1,300.
Ruling
Judge James Donato granted the revised fee request in part. The court did not award the $918 claimed for clerical tasks billed by the administrative assistant, and it did not award the $725 in pre-filing investigation costs. In total, the plaintiff may recover $2,770 in attorney’s fees and $612.16 in costs. The court stated that judgment would be entered separately.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.