Stanfield v. Tawkify, Inc.

Background

This order addressed Tawkify, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs after the prior dismissal of Jeremy Stanfield’s lawsuit. The lawsuit involved alleged violations of California’s Dating Services Contract Act, which allows a prevailing party to receive reasonable attorney’s fees. California law includes a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered within the definition of a prevailing party.

Tawkify requested $684,232 in attorney’s fees for 1,474.1 attorney hours and 205 paralegal hours, plus $20,367.21 in costs. Tawkify argued that it was entitled to recover fees and costs as the prevailing defendant. Stanfield opposed the request and submitted information about his limited ability to pay.

Attorney’s Fees

The court used the lodestar method, which estimates reasonable fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. After reviewing defense counsel’s invoices, time records, and experience, the court found that a $375 blended hourly rate and at least 600 reasonable hours would produce a lodestar of at least $225,000.

The court found Tawkify’s request to be excessive. It noted that Tawkify sought compensation for more than 1,474 attorney hours on a case involving only a few claims, even though the putative class action had not reached a stage requiring class-action discovery or motion practice. The court also found that Tawkify sought fees unrelated to its success, including fees connected to an unsuccessful effort to enforce an arbitration provision, an unsuccessful motion to stay, and an appeal that Tawkify later abandoned.

The court also considered Stanfield’s financial position. It found that Stanfield was not indigent and had the means to pay some fees, but concluded that imposing more than a modest amount would unjustly and disproportionately burden him and could deter other consumers from enforcing rights under the Dating Services Contract Act.

The court therefore made a substantial reduction rather than denying the fee request. It awarded Tawkify $50,000 in attorney’s fees.

Costs

The court found that Tawkify timely preserved its request for costs by filing the substance of its bill of costs with its fee motion. The court nevertheless excluded three charges that were not recoverable: a $562.00 charge for “E-filing Rush,” a $441.65 charge for an “expedited transcript,” and a $99.00 reporter-attendance charge because Tawkify had not shown that it used available legal process to compel the missing witness’s attendance.

These deductions reduced the costs award to $19,264.56.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup ordered Stanfield to pay Tawkify $50,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $19,264.56 in costs, for a total of $69,264.56. The order requires payment in installments of $500 per month until the award is paid, with no interest on the unpaid amount.