Filed: Oct. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT Re: Dkt. No. 69 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed a motion for monetary sanctions and contempt against Defendant Beebell Inc. (Dkt. No. 69.) After the filing of the motion, Defendant's counsel moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 74.) On August 28, 2018, the Court granted the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 78.) In that order, the Court explained that because Defendant is a corporat
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT Re: Dkt. No. 69 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed a motion for monetary sanctions and contempt against Defendant Beebell Inc. (Dkt. No. 69.) After the filing of the motion, Defendant's counsel moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 74.) On August 28, 2018, the Court granted the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 78.) In that order, the Court explained that because Defendant is a corporati..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT
Re: Dkt. No. 69
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Ennova Research SRL filed a motion for monetary sanctions and contempt against Defendant Beebell Inc. (Dkt. No. 69.) After the filing of the motion, Defendant's counsel moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 74.) On August 28, 2018, the Court granted the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 78.) In that order, the Court explained that because Defendant is a corporation, it is not able to appear in federal court except by counsel, and therefore gave Defendant 45 days to find substitute counsel. (Id. at 3.)
As of the date of this order, Defendant has not obtained substitute counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to rule on Plaintiff's motion for monetary sanctions and contempt. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff's counsel provides no information in support of his request for attorney's fees. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel fails to provide any time records, evidence of costs, or information about his experience that would be relevant to determining whether a $425 hourly rate is reasonable. See Chalmers v. City of L.A., 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986) ("In determining reasonable hours, counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended"). The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing, by November 7, 2018, regarding the amount of attorney's fees, which must include sufficient documentation to allow the Court to determine if the hours, costs, and hourly rate are sufficient. Failure to provide sufficient documentation may result in the Court reducing the amount requested. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) ("Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly"); eADGEAR, Inc. v. Liu, No. 11-cv-5398-JCS, 2012 WL 2367805, at *20 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2012) (recommending the denial of attorney's fees where counsel failed to provide time sheets or affidavits in support of their request).
IT IS SO ORDERED.