Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:613

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
RECOVER ATTORNEYS’ FEES [37]
Before the Court is Defendant Joseph Teixeira’s Motion to Recover Attorneys’
Fees (the “Motion”), filed on September 3, 2015. Plaintiff City of Inglewood filed a
Memorandum in Opposition on September 21, 2015, and Defendant’s Reply followed
September 28, 2015. (Docket Nos. 45, 46). The Court has reviewed and considered
the parties’ submissions, and held a hearing on October 5, 2015.
For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED with alterations as
noted. The Court determines that Defendant, as the prevailing party, is entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys’ fees under the circumstances of this case. Every factor
used to determine whether an award of fees is appropriate in a copyright infringement
action favors Defendant. Although the Court concludes that Defendant may not
recover fees for all of the hours his attorneys expended on the case, the Court
AWARDS Defendant $117,741 in attorneys’ fees as well as costs pursuant to the
Local Rules of this District.
I.

BACKGROUND

The City brought this action against Defendant under the Copyright Act, making
two basic allegations. First, the City claimed that it enjoys a copyright interest in the
video recordings of the public meetings of the Inglewood City Council. Second, the
City alleged that Defendant infringed on its copyright by using portions of the
recordings to criticize the City and its elected officials.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:614

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
The Court rejected both premises of the City’s Complaint and dismissed the
action with prejudice. (Order Granting Mot. Dismiss (“MTD Order”) at 1 (Docket No.
35)). The Court first determined that the City could not, as a matter of law, assert a
copyright interest in the recordings of the City Council’s meetings. (Id. at 6). And
even if it could, Defendant’s conduct fell squarely within the purview of the fair use
doctrine and was thus shielded from copyright liability. (Id. at 20). Indeed, the Court
remarked that it “can scarcely conceive of works that are more appropriately protected
by the fair use doctrine and § 107 than the Teixeira Videos.” (Id.).
Defendant now seeks to recover the attorneys’ fees expended on litigating this
action. Specifically, Defendant requests the following amounts:
Attorney/Staff

Title

Hours
Worked

2015 Rate

Lodestar
Total

Thomas R. Burke

Partner

33.60

$ 645

$ 21,672

Dan Laidman

Associate

249.40

$ 395

$ 98,513

Diana Palacios

Associate

38.80

$ 335

$ 12,998

Warren Keville

Paralegal

12.50

$ 155

$ 1,938

Total

$ 135,121

(Declaration of Dan Laidman (“Laidman Decl.”) ¶ 8, Ex. A (Docket No. 38);
Supplemental Declaration of Dan Laidman (“Suppl. Laidman Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3 (Docket
No. 46-1)).

________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:615

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
II.

BASIS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Copyright Act confers broad discretion on the Court to award “reasonable
attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Act
explicitly allows successful defendants to recover attorneys’ fees because meritorious
defenses further the purposes of the Act as much as meritorious claims do. See
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 527 (1994) (“Fogerty I”) (“[D]efendants who
seek to advance a variety of meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to
litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious
claims of infringement.”). To determine whether an award fees is appropriate in
specific circumstances, the Ninth Circuit uses a list of non-exhaustive factors,
including (1) the degree of success obtained; (2) the objective unreasonableness or
frivolousness of the case; (3) the motivation behind bringing a copyright infringement
claim; and (4) the need in particular circumstances to deter future frivolous copyright
actions. See Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg., 547 F.3d 1213, 1230 (9th
Cir. 2008) (discussing factors); Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553, 556 (9th Cir.
1996) (“Fogerty II”) (same). In all cases, the award of attorneys’ fees must further the
objectives of the Copyright Act: “to encourage the production of original literary,
artistic, and musical expression for the good of the public.” Fogerty I, 510 U.S. at 524.
That Defendant was represented on pro bono basis is of little import to the
propriety of the attorneys’ fees award. See Legal Voice v. Stormans, Inc., 757 F.3d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Attorneys' fees are recoverable by pro bono attorneys to
the same extent that they are recoverable by attorneys who charge for their services.”);
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 605 F. App'x 48, 50 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2015)
(“Preventing litigants who are represented by pro bono counsel from receiving fees
may decrease the future availability of pro bono counsel to impecunious litigants, who
may, in the absence of pro bono representation, abandon otherwise meritorious claims
and defenses. This runs counter to Fogerty's instruction that courts should exercise
their discretion under § 505 so as to encourage the litigation of meritorious claims and
defenses.”). The Court therefore briefly analyzes the relevant factors weighing in
favor of a fee award before turning to the loadstar calculation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
3

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:616

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
A.

Defendant’s Success in this Litigation

Defendant achieved a complete victory on the merits in dismissing the City’s
action with prejudice. Although the City seems to dispute that this factor favors feeshifting, none of the cases it cites are apposite. See Dhillon v. Does 1-10, No. C 1301465 SI, 2014 WL 722592, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) (determining that an
attorneys’ fees award would not further the purpose of the Copyright Act because
“defendant prevailed on only two of the four fair use factors”); Silberstein v. Fox
Entm't Grp., Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 440, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (declining to award
attorneys’ fees because, among other reasons, even the “defendants themselves did not
view plaintiff's copyright claims as specious”); Marshall & Swift/Boeckh, LLC v.
Dewberry & Davis LLC, 586 F. App'x 448, 450 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming the denial of
attorneys’ fees without significant elaboration). Defendant’s total victory thus favors
an award of fees.
B.

Objective Unreasonableness of the City’s Claims

The Court agrees with Defendant that the City’s claims were objectively
unreasonable. As the Court determined in its MTD Order, “the only published
authority on the question of the ability of California public entities to assert copyright
over works they produce holds that the City may not assert a copyright interest in the
City Council Videos.” (MTD Order at 6). Prior to bringing this action, the City should
have closely scrutinized the only controlling authority on this issue—County of Santa
Clara v. Suprior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 (2009)—and at
least discussed the case with Defendant or his counsel.
Both at the hearing and in the papers, the City argued that it was “manifestly
reasonable to assume” that the Court would not follow City of Santa Clara. (See Opp.
at 7-8). The premise of the City’s contention is that the holding in Santa Clara is in
“direct conflict” with the Second Circuit’s opinion in County of Suffolk v. First
American Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179 (2d. Cir. 2001). (Opp. at 7). Due to the
purported conflict, the City “could not have intuited” that the Court would be swayed
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
4

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:617

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
by state and not federal case law in a field within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
federal courts. (Id.).
Plaintiff has been and remains simply wrong on this point. There is no conflict
between the holdings of Santa Clara and Suffolk, and a cursory review of the two cases
shows just how mistaken the City is. The Second Circuit framed the issue before it as
follows: “[A]lthough a state and its subdivisions may own a copyright as a matter of
copyright law, it may be that Suffolk County is not permitted to do so in this instance.
The question becomes whether New York's Legislature, by enacting FOIL, has ceded
Suffolk County's copyright.” Cnty. of Suffolk, 261 F.3d at 188. The panel answered
that question in the negative, holding that “the [New York] Legislature, by enacting
FOIL, did not abrogate Suffolk County's copyright.” Id. at 190.
The Court of Appeal in Santa Clara was presented with the same issue but in the
context of California law. The panel thus considered whether California law prohibits
a California public entity to obtain and enforce a copyright under the Copyright Act.
Cnty. Of Santa Clara, 170 Cal. App. at 1320. The appellate court concluded that, in
the absence of “an affirmative grant of authority,” a California municipality may not
do so. Id. at 1333. Because the City is a California entity, not a New York one, this
Court relied on Santa Clara in dismissing the City’s copyright claims. (MTD Order at
6). The City does not—because it cannot—explain why this Court would consider
Suffolk and the impact of New York legislation when deciding whether California law
permits the City to enforce its copyrights. As the Court made clear in its prior Order,
the only sensible reading of the two cases is that a California public entity “may not
claim copyright protection for a work it has created even if it falls within the scope of
the federal copyright protection,” while a New York municipality can. (MTD Order at
9).
Even if the City were permitted to hold a protectable copyright under the
Copyright Act, its claims would still fail because Defendant’s videos are textbook
examples of fair use works. As the Court already explained, Defendant produced
“quintessential transformative works for the purpose of criticism and commentary on
matters of public concern.” (MTD Order at 15). The Court’s view is consistent with,
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
5

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:618

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
although in no way influenced by, the universal condemnation the lawsuit received
from legal academics and other experts in copyright, First Amendment, and public
records law. (See Laidman Decl. ¶ 28, Ex. E). The nature and purpose of Defendant’s
videos should have given the City at least some pause and prompted it to conduct
further research into the merits of its claims. Indeed, when a fair use defense is that
strong, courts view the copyright infringement claim as “objectively unreasonable.”
Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., No. CV99-8543RSWL(RZX), 2004 WL
1454100, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2004) (plaintiff’s copyright claim deemed
“objectively unreasonable” when “the parodic character of [d]efendant's work was
clear”); Brownmark Films LLC v. Comedy Partners, No. 10-CV-1013-JPS, 2011 WL
6002961, at *6 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 30, 2011) (“[B]ecause the defendants' fair-use defense
was so strong, satisfying all four fair-use factors,” the plaintiff’s legal position was
objectively unreasonable). This factor thus weighs in favor of a fee award.
At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff mistakenly referred to this Court’s ruling on
fair use as an advisory opinion. This Court is free to resolve all issues raised by the
Motion. While the Court could have granted the Motion solely on either ground, the
Court has the authority to resolve both. Indeed, had the City chosen to appeal, it would
have been in the City’s interest to have both issues resolved.
C.

The City’s Motivations in Bringing its Claims

It is, of course, impossible to know with certainty what prompted the City to
bring this lawsuit. The City avers that its only motivation was to enforce the rights it
believed it had in the videos. (Opp. at 11). But the Court is not persuaded. As
Defendant rightly notes, the main justification of the Copyright Act is “the protection
of the commercial interest of the author.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 74445 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in the
original). California law, however, prohibits the City from charging anything more
than the “direct costs of duplication” when providing public records. (MTD Order at
19). Pecuniary gain, therefore, could not have been the motivating factor in filing this
action. As the Court made clear at the hearing, the City’s most plausible purpose was
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
6

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:619

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
to stifle Defendant’s political speech after he harshly criticized the City’s elected
officials. As such, this factor weighs heavily in favor of an attorneys’ fees award.
At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff implied that this Court was basing its ruling
on the reaction of the press or the academic community. The Court does not do so.
Defendant has submitted various materials in support of its Motion that are consistent
with granting attorneys’ fees. (See Laidman Decl. ¶ 28, Ex. E). The Court, however,
does not base this Order on those materials and would reach the same conclusion in
their absence.
D.

Deterrence of Future Frivolous Actions

The Court is also persuaded that a fee award is necessary to deter future
meritless litigations of this kind. The City argues that the attorneys’ fees “will have
absolutely no deterrent effect” on a municipality that intends to file no future copyright
lawsuits. (Opp. at 11). Even if true, the Court notes that deterrence is a broad value
that is not limited to the individual litigants here. Indeed, a reasonable award of fees
will serve to deter other entities, whether public or private, that contemplate bringing
unreasonable suits to pressure an individual into abandoning protected activity. See
Mattel, 2004 WL 1454100 at *2 (“Mattel (a large corporation) brought objectively
unreasonable copyright claims against an individual artist. This is just the sort of
situation in which this Court should award attorneys’ fees to deter this type of litigation
which contravenes the intent of the Copyright Act.”).
E.

Goals of the Copyright Act

The Court is convinced that the purposes of the Copyright Act are furthered
when the transformative works such as the videos involved here are protected from
unreasonable claims. See, e.g., SOFA Entm't, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d
1273, 1280 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When a fee award encourages a defendant to litigate a
meritorious fair use claim against an unreasonable claim of infringement, the policies
of the Copyright Act are served.”); Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569,
579 (1994) (“[T]he goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
7

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:620

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of
the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright.”).
To the extent the City denies that Defendant’s videos constitute “original literary,
artistic, and musical expression” (see Opp. at 13), courts have rejected such arguments.
See Choyce v. SF Bay Area Indep. Media Ctr., No. 13-CV-01842-JST, 2014 WL
5597274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (“[W]hile the Indybay website may not be
‘artistic creativity’ per se, it is a forum for public expression. The Copyright Act's feeshifting provision is designed to ensure that such forums for expression are not
unhindered by asserted intellectual property claims that have no basis in the law.”).
Indeed, this lawsuit posed a serious threat to critical political expression, and the
successful defense against the City’s claims successfully maintained the boundaries of
liability under the Copyright Act.
In sum, all factors favor granting reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court now
turns to calculating the precise amount of the award.
III.

CALCULATION OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
A.

Legal Standard

In copyright cases, the Ninth Circuit utilizes the “loadstar method” to calculate a
reasonable fee award. See Lawrence v. Sony Pictures Entm't, Inc., 534 F. App'x 651,
654 (9th Cir. 2013). The lodestar is comprised of the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate of the attorneys.
Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002).
In making that calculation, the Court may consider the following guidelines:
(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the
preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case,
(5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
8

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:621

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case, (11) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.
Id. “After the lodestar is determined, the court may make adjustments, depending on
the circumstances of the case.” United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d
403, 406 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897, 104 S. Ct. 1541,
79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984)). “Factors subsumed in the original determination of
reasonable hours and rates, however, should not be used to adjust the lodestar figure.”
Id. “[T]here is a strong presumption” that the lodestar calculation “is a reasonable
fee.” Id.
B.

Discussion
1. Hourly Rates for Defendant’s Counsel

In determining the reasonable hourly rates for Defendant’s counsel, the Court is
guided by the attorneys’ usual billing rates. See Moore v. James H. Matthews & Co.,
682 F.2d 830, 840 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Unless counsel is working outside his or her
normal area of practice, the billing-rate multiplier is, for practical reasons, usually
counsel’s normal billing rate.”); Elser v. I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund, 579 F. Supp.
1375, 1379 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (“[T]he best evidence [of an attorney’s reasonable hourly
billing rate] would be the hourly rate customarily charged by the [applicant] himself or
by his law firm.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Defendant has submitted
numerous declarations showing that rates requested in the Motion are the same rates
Defendant’s attorneys charge their paying clients. (See Laidman Decl. ¶ 4).
As Defendant points out, the charged amounts are reasonable in light of the
attorneys’ experience, skills, and reputations. (Mot. at 16). Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP (“DWT”) is a nationally recognized firm in the areas of First Amendment and
intellectual property litigation. (Id. at 17). Mr. Burke is a leading First Amendment
lawyer with 26 years of experience, who has litigated numerous precedential cases and
has taught media law at University of California, Berkeley. (Declaration of Thomas R.
Burke (“Burke Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-5). Mr. Laidman is a former Ninth Circuit law clerk with
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
9

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
five years of experience, while Ms. Palacios—the most junior member of the team—
has three years of experience in media litigation. (Laidman Decl. ¶¶ 5-7).
Defendant also presents declarations from two experts in the Southern California
legal market who have considerable experience with this type of litigation. (Mot. at
17). Both experts opine that the requested rates are within the range of those charged
by comparable firms in Sothern California. (Mot. at 17).
The City provides its own expert declaration, which claims that the rates
demanded by Defendant’s counsel are unreasonable. Typical rates for DWT’s clients,
the City argues, “would be in the range of $300 an hour for a partner, half that rate for
an associate and less for a paralegal.” (Opp. at 15; Declaration of Judith Bain (“Bain
Decl.”) ¶ 5). But the City fails to substantiate that assertion with anything but
speculative remarks regarding DWT’s practice and clients. As Defendant’s counsel
noted at the hearing, the City has not met its burden to establish that a discounted rate
should apply. Indeed, the City has offered no reason to doubt Defendant’s submitted
declarations showing that the requested fees are consistent with market rates and
charged to DWT’s paying clients. And while it may be that DWT provides discounts
to some clients “based on the client’s relationship to the firm, the volume of business it
gives the firm, and the degree of case complexity” (Id. ¶ 7), nothing in the record
indicates that such a discount is appropriate here.
Based on the foregoing and the Court’s own extensive knowledge of the Los
Angeles legal market, the Court concludes that the requested hourly rates are proper
for calculating the loadstar amount.
2. Hours Expended by Defendant’s Counsel
Defendant argues that the amount of hours expended on this litigation is
reasonable on five separate grounds. First, as already discussed, the defense was
entirely successful in dismissing the case with prejudice. Second, the issues raised in
the Motion to Dismiss were complex, requiring research into the intersection between
federal copyright law and state public records law. Third, the City’s own litigation
tactics drove up defense costs. Fourth, the case was led efficiently by Mr. Laidman, a
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
10

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:623

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
mid-level associate at DWT, while Mr. Burke assumed only a supervisory role. And
finally, the total amount requested is within the range of fees awarded in comparable
copyright actions. See Wild v. NBC Universal, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157860, No.
10-CV-03615-GAF-AJW (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2011) (awarding $112,590.80 for 274.8
hours expended on dismissing a copyright infringement case via a Rule 12 motion);
Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, No. 14-CV-05048-AB-VBK (C.D.
Cal. May 27, 2015) (awarding $195,838.50 for 546.5 hours of work in dismissing the
action on an anti-SLAPP motion).
The City maintains that the hours billed by Defendant’s attorneys are grossly
inflated. The City primarily takes issue with the time spent on drafting the motion to
dismiss and related papers. (Opp. at 18). Mr. Laidman alone appears to have spent
over 130 hours on the motion to dismiss, while the total number of hours expended on
the motion comes close to 170. (Id.; Bain Decl. ¶ 9). The City erroneously concludes
that Defendant’s counsel inflated its total hours by approximately 80 percent and that
the motion to dismiss should have been drafted in no more than 20 hours. (Id. at 20).
The Court in no way wishes to criticize Mr. Laidman and does not suggest that
the hours worked were excessive in terms of producing a polished final product.
Nonetheless, the City cannot be forced to pay for a Cadillac if a Chevy would have
sufficed. Moreover, based on the Court’s own experience as an associate, this is
precisely the sort of case in which a lawyer might feel free to work more hours since
the client might not get stuck with a bill. Plaintiff’s rejoinder based on contingency
cases is inapposite.
Therefore, the Court determines that 45 hours should be subtracted from the total
time billed by Mr. Laidman in the final loadstar calculation.
C.

Lodestar Calculation

The following chart presents the final calculation of the loadstar amount,
incorporating the time spent on the Reply in support of this Motion. The Court added
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
11

 Case 2:15-cv-01815-MWF-MRW Document 48 Filed 10/08/15 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:624

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-15-01815-MWF (MRWx)
Date: October 8, 2015
Title:
City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al.
two additional hours to Mr. Laidman’s time in order to account for the time spent in
preparation for and at the hearing. (See Suppl. Laidman Decl. ¶¶ 2-3).
Accordingly, the Court awards $117,741 in attorneys’ fees, and costs as
provided in the Local Rules of this District.
Attorney

Hourly Rate

Compensable Hours

Total

Thomas R. Burke

$645

33.60

$21,672

Dan Laidman

$395

205.40

$81,133

Diana Palacios

$335

38.80

$12,998

Warren Keville

$155

12.50

$1,938

Total

$117,741

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
12