Filed: May 24, 2016
Latest Update: May 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE: FEES ON FEES Re: Dkt. Nos. 660, 678, 681 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On May 9, 2016, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys' fees for Plaintiff's successful motion to strike IQ System, Inc.'s anti-SLAPP motion. Dkt. No. 660. In that order the Court also awarded Plaintiff fees incurred with respect to enforcing its right to fees under 425.16, id. See also Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 , 1141 (2001). The Court directed Plaintiff to submit billing records indi
Summary: ORDER RE: FEES ON FEES Re: Dkt. Nos. 660, 678, 681 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On May 9, 2016, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys' fees for Plaintiff's successful motion to strike IQ System, Inc.'s anti-SLAPP motion. Dkt. No. 660. In that order the Court also awarded Plaintiff fees incurred with respect to enforcing its right to fees under 425.16, id. See also Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 , 1141 (2001). The Court directed Plaintiff to submit billing records indic..
More
ORDER RE: FEES ON FEES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 660, 678, 681
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
On May 9, 2016, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys' fees for Plaintiff's successful motion to strike IQ System, Inc.'s anti-SLAPP motion. Dkt. No. 660. In that order the Court also awarded Plaintiff fees incurred with respect to enforcing its right to fees under § 425.16, id. See also Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141 (2001). The Court directed Plaintiff to submit billing records indicating the number of hours expended on the motion for fees.
On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal an unredacted copy of the invoice identifying the time entries and nature of services for the work performed on the fees' motion, Dkt. No. 681. For the reasons identified in the Court's May 6, 2016 order, Dkt. No. 646, the Court GRANTS the motion to file the invoice under seal, Dkt. No. 681.
On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a declaration in support of its motion for fees on fees, identifying the time entries and work performed on the fees' motion. Dkt. No. 678. Plaintiff request $9,379 for work performed on the opening brief. Id. at 2. The opening brief was filed on October 9, 2015, Dkt. No. 258, and according to Plaintiff, the green entries on the invoice reflect the work performed on the opening brief. Dkt. No. 678 at 2. Several of the green entries, however, were for work performed after the date the opening brief was filed. Because the hours expended after October 9 could not have been for work performed on the opening brief, the Court deducts $950.00 from the total. Having found the remaining time entries reasonable in light of the nature of the motion, the Court awards $8,429 for work performed on the opening brief.
Plaintiff requests $8,167 for work performed on the reply brief, which was filed on October 30, 2015. The yellow entries on the invoice reflect hours expended on the reply brief, and the Court finds that the work performed on the reply brief reasonable in light of the work needed. Accordingly, the Court awards the full requested amount for the hours expended on the reply brief.
For the reasons described here, as well as in the Court's May 9, 2016 order, the Court awards Plaintiff $16,596 for the fees on fees' request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
