Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-00291
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan, Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice the trademark plaintiff’s fee motion, allowing a more detailed amended filing.
Vietnam Reform Party’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs from VT Corp. was denied without prejudice; the plaintiff was permitted to file an amended motion within 10 days with additional records and detail.
What happened
Vietnam Reform Party sued Viet Tan—Vietnam Reform Party, identified as VT Corp., and two individuals in a trademark case. One individual settled and was dismissed with prejudice; the court later granted in part and denied in part the request for default judgment against the remaining defendants. The plaintiff then requested $164,981 in attorneys’ fees and $7,140.56 in costs from VT Corp.
The court said the filing did not provide enough detail to review whether the requested time and expenses were reasonable. It also appeared to include expected fees for preparing a reply, even though no response had been filed. The court required time records and a breakdown showing hours and fees by person and task, along with information comparing the requested rates with fees for similar work in the area.
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied the fee motion without prejudice. The plaintiff may file an amended motion within 10 days after the order is entered, with the required detailed information.
The detailed version
- Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party · No. 4:17-cv-00291
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Vietnam Reform Party brought a trademark action against Viet Tan—Vietnam Reform Party, which the opinion calls “VT Corp.,” and against Nguyen Thanh Tu and Michelle Duong. Only Tu appeared. Tu and the plaintiff reached a settlement agreement, and Tu was dismissed with prejudice from the case. The plaintiff later sought default judgment against VT Corp. and Duong. The court granted in part and denied in part that motion.
The plaintiff then sought $164,981.00 in attorneys’ fees and $7,140.56 in costs from VT Corp. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). No response or opposition was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it could not simply accept the plaintiff’s statements about the time its attorneys spent on the case. The relevant question was whether the time was reasonably necessary to pursue the federal trademark claims effectively. The plaintiff also had to make a good-faith effort to remove excessive, repetitive, or unnecessary hours from its request and provide specific information about any reductions.
The plaintiff supplied attorney credentials and a chart listing hourly rates, hours, and amounts billed. But the court found that the record did not allow adequate review of the request. The plaintiff appeared to include unbilled expected fees for preparing a reply to the fee motion. The court also required an analysis based on the actual time records presented in the case.
Disposition
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to filing an amended motion within 10 days after entry of the order. The amended motion must include the plaintiff’s time records; a detailed, itemized breakdown of fees and costs; hours and fees for each timekeeper; hours and fees for each task; and details or comparisons concerning prevailing fees for similar work in the area, rather than conclusory statements.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.