Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2022

Facebook, Inc. v. Holper

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:20-cv-06023
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureIntellectual PropertyFee Petition
In one sentence

In Facebook v. Holper, Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion, entering a $199,535.44 judgment.

Who this affects

Facebook, Inc., the other plaintiffs, and Nikolay Holper. The plaintiffs received a default judgment totaling $199,535.44, while the attorney’s-fee award was reduced to $89,351.00; the court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal the billing information.

What happened

In Facebook, Inc. v. Holper, the plaintiffs asked the court to enter a judgment because Nikolay Holper had not appeared. No one objected to Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero’s recommended decision.

Judge Alsup agreed that the motion for default judgment should be granted in part and denied in part. He adopted the recommendation with one change: attorney’s fees were reduced from $107,221.20 to $89,351.00.

Judge Alsup ordered that a separate default judgment be entered for $199,535.44: $100,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting, $89,351 in attorney’s fees, and $10,184.44 in costs. He also denied a previously granted motion to seal the billing information.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Facebook, Inc. v. Holper · No. 3:20-cv-06023
Judge
William Alsup
Date
Nov. 22, 2022

Background

Facebook, Inc., and the other plaintiffs moved for default judgment against Nikolay Holper. Default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant does not appear or otherwise defend the case. The opinion refers to the plaintiffs’ cybersquatting claim but does not provide additional factual details about that claim.

Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. No objection was filed. Judge Alsup reviewed the report and agreed with its recommendation, except regarding attorney’s fees.

Attorney’s Fees

The plaintiffs requested $178,702.00 in attorney’s fees. Judge Spero recommended reducing that request by 40%, resulting in a recommended award of $107,221.20. The reasons included failures to address key issues in the original motion, limited success on the requested statutory damages, and unreasonable billing for relatively straightforward work. The report also identified more than 35 hours spent on case-management matters even though the defendant never appeared.

Judge Alsup found that an additional 10% reduction was warranted, for a total 50% reduction from the requested fees. He specifically noted more than 26 hours of billing entries concerning service of process, including 20 entries totaling 4.7 hours for status updates. The final attorney’s-fee award was therefore $89,351.00.

Sealing Request

The fee review used billing entries supplied by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Judge Alsup found that the entries did not disclose work product, privileged communications, or other material requiring sealing. He therefore denied the motion to seal that had previously been granted by minute order.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup held that the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was granted in part and denied in part. He ordered that default judgment be separately entered for $199,535.44, consisting of $100,000.00 in statutory damages for cybersquatting, $89,351.00 in attorney’s fees, and $10,184.44 in costs.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.