Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-08153
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Facebook v. Sahinturk: Judge Corley granted fees and costs after a default judgment in an intellectual-property case.
Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Meta Platforms, Inc. (identified in the fee submission as the former Facebook, Inc.) received the fee and cost award; Ensar Sahinturk was subject to the award.
What happened
In Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk, Facebook and Instagram accused Ensar Sahinturk of cybersquatting, trademark dilution, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The court had already entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs requested $154,580 in attorneys’ fees for 214 hours of work and $13,040 in costs. They supported the request with billing records and a declaration, and also asked to keep parts of those records sealed.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that the case was exceptional because of the alleged infringement and Sahinturk’s failure to defend the case. The court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, awarded the requested amounts, and granted the plaintiffs’ request to seal portions of the billing records.
The detailed version
- Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk · No. 3:20-cv-08153
- Jacquelyn Corley
- June 17, 2022
Background
Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC sued Ensar Sahinturk under the Lanham Act for cybersquatting and trademark dilution, and under state law for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and directed them to provide documentation supporting their request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees
The Lanham Act allows a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in an exceptional case. The court explained that a case may be exceptional when the strength of a party’s legal position or the way the case was litigated makes it stand out from ordinary cases.
The court found both relevant factors here. In the earlier default-judgment ruling, it had found that Sahinturk allegedly scraped Instagram user data without authorization, used Instagram marks on clone websites without authorization, monetized the websites with advertisements, continued the conduct after receiving multiple cease-and-desist letters, and concealed his identity as the domain-name registrant. The court also noted that Sahinturk failed to defend the action. It therefore concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Reasonableness of the Fee Request
The plaintiffs sought $154,580 for 214 hours of work. The court applied the lodestar method, which evaluates fees by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate.
The court found the 214 hours reasonable because the plaintiffs had limited both the types of work included and the hours requested. Although counsel reported spending 308.6 hours on the default-judgment motion, the plaintiffs sought fees for only 161.60 of those hours. The court also found counsel’s hourly rates reasonable based on rates in the district and the attorneys’ experience.
Costs and Disposition
The court found the plaintiffs’ costs reasonable and supported by the submitted declaration. The costs included filing fees and efforts to serve Sahinturk internationally under the Hague Service Convention, including translation of case documents.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and awarded $154,580 in attorneys’ fees and $13,040 in costs. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley also granted the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal portions of their detailed billing records. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 37 and 38.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.