Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Innovative Sports Management owns domestic commercial exhibition rights to broadcast certain soccer games nationwide. It sued Lady Lizcano, Manuel Trujilio, and MLSJ, Inc., alleging that they displayed one of those matches inside their restaurant without a license. On August 5, 2026, the court granted Innovative's motion for default judgment on its claim under 47 U.S.C. § 553. The judgment awarded $8,500 in total damages against all defendants, consisting of $1,000 in statutory damages and $7,500 in enhanced damages, and permitted Innovative to seek attorney's fees and costs.
Innovative filed its fee-and-cost motion on August 19, 2026, under 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C). It requested $16,562.50 in attorney's fees: 13.45 hours by Thomas P. Riley at $750 per hour, six hours of Riley's travel time at $375 per hour, and 13 hours by an unidentified research attorney at $325 per hour. Innovative also requested $1,767.22 in costs, comprising the $405 complaint filing fee, $612.22 in service-of-process fees, and $750 in investigative expenses. The court decided the motion on the briefs, concluded that oral argument was unnecessary under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and vacated the hearing scheduled for October 21, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that § 553(c)(2)(C) gives courts discretion to award full costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a prevailing aggrieved party. It applied the lodestar method, multiplying hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Counsel must submit detailed time records, and a court may reduce hours for inadequate documentation, duplication, overstaffing, or excessive or unnecessary work. A fee award may also be reduced when recovery is modest relative to the amount initially sought. The court accepted Innovative's requested hourly rates as reasonable, citing a prior decision approving $675 for Riley and $325 for a research attorney, but reduced the claimed hours for two reasons.
First, Riley declared that billable hours had been reconstructed through a review of the files rather than recorded contemporaneously. The court found those records inherently less reliable and susceptible to time inflation, and imposed a 25 percent reduction. Second, it imposed an additional 10 percent reduction because counsel's firm routinely files these claims, making much of the extensive research, including research for the fee motion, likely unnecessary. The court noted Innovative's own statement that this case presented no unusual challenges. Together, the reductions totaled 35 percent and lowered the fee request from $16,562.50 to $11,593.75.
On costs, the court limited recovery to the complaint filing fee and service-of-process charges. It held that pre-filing investigative costs were not incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit and therefore were not recoverable, eliminating the requested $750 investigative expense. The court awarded $1,017.22 in costs. In total, Innovative recovered $12,610.97, consisting of $11,593.75 in attorney's fees and $1,017.22 in costs. The motion was therefore granted in part and denied in part.
Key Takeaways
- A prevailing party under 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C) may recover reasonable attorney's fees and full costs, but the amount remains subject to the court's discretion.
- Reconstructed rather than contemporaneous billing records supported a 25 percent reduction because the court found them less reliable and susceptible to time inflation.
- An additional 10 percent reduction reflected the routine nature of counsel's practice and the likelihood that extensive research was unnecessary in this case.
- The court accepted the requested hourly rates while reducing the compensable work, illustrating that a reasonable rate does not guarantee recovery of every claimed hour.
- Pre-filing investigative expenses were excluded from costs, while the filing fee and service-of-process charges remained recoverable.
Why It Matters
The order provides a concrete application of lodestar scrutiny in a default-judgment fee request under § 553. It separates the reasonableness of hourly rates from the reasonableness of claimed hours and shows how billing practices and case familiarity can independently reduce an award. The court relied both on the reconstructed records and on Innovative's acknowledgment that the case presented no unusual challenges.
The costs ruling also draws a practical boundary between expenses incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit and pre-filing investigation. Innovative recovered the filing and service expenses but not its investigative costs. The decision resolves the fee-and-cost motion following the earlier default judgment; it does not revisit the underlying liability finding or the previously awarded $8,500 in damages.