Nextdoor, Inc. v. Abhyanker, No. 3:2012cv05667 - Document 608 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: PUBLIC/REDACTED VERSION - ORDER Granting 577 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Judge Edward M. Chen. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2021)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nextdoor, Inc. v. Abhyanker Doc. 608 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEXTDOOR, INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 RAJ ABHYANKER, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 12-cv-05667-EMC PUBLIC/REDACTED VERSION ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Docket No. 577 12 13 Plaintiff Nextdoor, Inc. has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fee request is close to 14 15 $1 million, representing more than 1,000 hours of work. See Mot. at 1; Pulgram Decl., Ex. B. All 16 fees were incurred post-settlement. Defendant Raj Abhyanker opposes the motion. He contends 17 that Nextdoor is not entitled to fees because it is not the prevailing party. He also argues that, 18 even if Nextdoor were the prevailing party, many, if not all, of the attorney hours should not be 19 compensated. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby 20 21 finds that Nextdoor is the prevailing party and thus GRANTS the fee motion.1 The Court, 22 however, does not adjudicate at this time the amount of fees that should be awarded. Instead, the 23 Court orders the parties to a settlement conference with a magistrate judge to see if the parties can 24 reach agreement on the amount of fees and/or otherwise resolve the current dispute. The hearing 25 on the fee motion that was set for August 5, 2021, is hereby VACATED. 26 27 28 1 Mr. Abhyanker has filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. See Docket No. 600 (motion). Out of an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS that request. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in December 2014. See Docket No. 42019 (Settlement Agreement). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 The fees requested by Nextdoor are, generally speaking, those incurred as of November 16, 2020. In terms of what has taken place since that date, the highlights are as follows: • On December 8, 2020, Mr. Abhyanker filed a motion to be relieved of his 14 obligations under the Settlement Agreement. See Docket No. 420-12 (motion). 15 The parties refer to this as the first motion under the Court’s retained jurisdiction 16 (“FMRJ”). 17 18 19 20 • On December 16, 2020, Mr. Abhyanker filed a second motion under the Court’s 21 retained jurisdiction (“SMRJ”), claiming that Nextdoor had breached a provision in 22 the Settlement Agreement 23 24 See Docket No. 445 (motion). 25 26 • No. 460 (order). 27 28 In late January 2021, the Court denied the SMRJ in late January 2021. See Docket • In late February 2021, the Court denied the FMRJ. See Docket No. 474 (order). 2 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 7 1 Mr. Abhyanker subsequently appealed that decision. See Docket No. 500 (notice 2 of appeal). 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 The unilateral action United States District Court Northern District of California 10 11 taken by Mr. Abhyanker consisted of the following: (1) filing a lawsuit against 12 Nextdoor seeking, inter alia, to invalidate six of its patents; (2) filing a lawsuit 13 against Nextdoor asserting, inter alia, infringement of six of his own patents; (3) 14 initiating six ex parte petitions for reexamination of Nextdoor’s patents; (4) filing a 15 lawsuit against Nextdoor seeking declaration that its logo was abandoned and 16 invalid; and (5) initiating a TTAB proceeding challenging Nextdoor’s logo. See 17 generally Docket No. 560 (order). 18 • Mr. Abhyanker’s unilateral actions led to Nextdoor filing a motion to enforce the 19 settlement and for immediate interim relief (in March 2021). See Docket No. 524 20 (motion). 21 • In April 2021, the Court granted Nextdoor’s motion for immediate relief 22 but reserved final adjudication of the motion to 23 24 enforce the settlement (even though the motion had merit) because of the Ninth 25 Circuit appeal. See Docket No. 560 (order). 26 • Mr. Abhyanker subsequently dismissed the Ninth Circuit appeal. The Court 27 therefore held a status conference on June 1, 2021, to discuss with the parties what 28 remained to be done in the action. Nextdoor indicated that it intended to file a 3 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 7 1 motion for fees based on Mr. Abhyanker’s conduct. Mr. Abhyanker stated that he 2 still intended to proceed with his motion for sanctions (filed back in March 2021), 3 . See Docket No. 4 572 (minutes). 5 6 • 7 giving final relief rather than just immediate interim relief). See Docket No. 574 8 (order). 9 • 11 Nextdoor then filed the pending fee motion in July 2021. See Docket No. 577 (motion)/ 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Subsequently, the Court granted Nextdoor’s motion to enforce the settlement (i.e., • On July 16, 2021, the Court denied Mr. Abhyanker’s motion for sanctions, noting 12 that it lacked merit in light of the Court’s prior order in which it had granted 13 Nextdoor interim relief. See Docket No. 596 (order). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 There is no doubt that, in the instant case, Nextdoor is the prevailing party. The Court has 5 repeatedly ruled in Nextdoor’s favor – e.g., denying Mr. Abhyanker’s motion to be relieved of his 6 obligations under the Settlement Agreement (i.e., his FMRJ), denying his SMRJ, and granting 7 Nextdoor’s motion for immediate interim relief as well as its ultimate motion for enforcement the 8 Settlement Agreement. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Mr. Abhyanker argues that he is the prevailing party because he was able to obtain one of 13 his main litigation objectives, see id. at 877 (stating that “a party who is denied direct relief on a 14 claim may nonetheless be found to be a prevailing party if it is clear that the party has otherwise 15 achieved its main litigation objective”) 16 17 18 . But this argument is unavailing because it ignores the fact that the Court denied Mr. Abhyanker’s FMRJ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Abhyanker contends still that, even if he is not the prevailing party, the Court should still reject finding Nextdoor as the prevailing party 26 27 28 5 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 “[T]ypically, a determination of no prevailing party results when both parties seek relief, but neither prevails, or when the ostensibly prevailing party receives only a part of the relief sought.” By contrast, when the results of the litigation on the contract claims are not mixed – that is, when the decision on the litigated contract claims is purely good news for one party and bad news for the other – the Courts of Appeal have recognized that a trial court has no discretion to deny attorney fees to the successful litigant. 13 Id. at 875-76. In short, “those parties whose litigation success is not fairly disputable [are entitled] 14 to claim attorney fees as a matter of right, while . . . the trial court [has] a measure of discretion to 15 find no prevailing party when the results of the litigation are mixed.” Id. at 876. “[W]hen one 16 party obtains a ‘simple, unqualified win’ on the single contract claim presented by the action, the 17 trial court may not invoke equitable considerations unrelated to litigation success, such as the 18 parties’ behavior during settlement negotiations or discovery proceedings, except as expressly 19 authorized by statute.” Id. at 877. 20 Given the standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in Hsu, the Court rejects 21 Mr. Abhyanker’s argument that there is no prevailing party in the instant case. The results in this 22 case are, in essence, a simple, unqualified win for Nextdoor. 23 24 25 Accordingly, the Court grants Nextdoor’s motion for fees. However, at this juncture, the 26 Court does not make a decision as to what constitutes a reasonable fee award. Instead, the Court 27 finds that it would be more fruitful to order the parties to a settlement conference with a magistrate 28 judge to determine if they can reach an agreement on the amount of fees and/or otherwise resolve 6 Case 3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document 608 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 7 1 the current dispute. Although this will require the parties to devote some additional resources, in 2 the long run, it makes more sense to try to achieve a final resolution now as, otherwise, it seems 3 likely that another appeal would follow. 4 5 III. CONCLUSION Nextdoor’s fee motion is granted but the Court defers ruling on a reasonable fee award. 6 The Clerk of the Court shall immediately refer this case to magistrate judge for a settlement 7 conference to address the remaining part of the fee motion. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: July 26, 2021 12 13 14 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
