Citigroup Inc. v. Shui et al, No. 1:2008cv00727 - Document 29 (E.D. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Pltf's Declaration in Support of Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 08/18/09. (pmil)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Divis: CITIGROUP, INCORPORATED, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA Civil Action No. V. CHEN BAO 08-0727 SHUI, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Declaration in Support of On February 24, 2009, Request this for Attorney's Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and awarded Plaintiff relief reasonable attorney's Plaintiff Request fees Fees and Costs. and costs. including On March 10, 2009, filed a Bill of Costs and a Declaration in Support of for Attorneys' Fees. Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff's submission. Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on its claim that Defendant registered and used a domain name Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. 1125(d) (2006)("ACPA"). in violation of the 15 U.S.C.A. In granting summary judgment, § this Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under section 1117(d) Plaintiff bears of the ACPA. 15 U.S.C.A. the burden of establishing that § 1117(d) (2006). its attorney's fees are Cir. 1990){"the burden rests the reasonable. Plyler v. reasonableness of Eouifax Info. Servs.. a reasonable the v. fee with the LLC. 560 is Inc. v. Caperton, Circuit has 31 424, F.3d 433 169, 244 instructed this (1983); Court to be 560 F.3d at 243 Inc.. F.2d 216, 226 n.28 577 to establish in Robinson v. (4th Cir. 2009)). hourly rate." Rum Creek Coal 1994). Sales. The Fourth factors expended and rate (citing Barber v. (4th Cir. Hensley guided by twelve when determining the reasonableness of hours Robinson, (4th reasonably expended on (4th Cir. charged. 277 for determining the amount reasonable 174 273, (cited the number of hours 461 U.S. F.2d fee applicant F.3d 235, starting point litigation multiplied by a Eckerhart. 902 a requested rate.") "The most useful of Evatt. 1978)). Those Kimbrell's, factors are: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys' Id. fees (hereinafter the awards in similar "Barber factors"). cases. "Any award must be accompanied by detailed findings of fact with regard to the factors considered." Id. at 226. This exercise Grissom v. After the subtract claims, creates The Mills Corp.. lodestar figure fees and what seeks LLP, 320 figure. (4th Cir. 2008). this Court should claims unrelated to any successful the remaining amount, success enjoyed by the Plaintiff." reimbursement for a total of 167.2 hours F.3d at expended by the figure F.3d 313, "award some percentage of 560 call a lodestar determined, for unsuccessful Plaintiff Traurig, 549 is depending on the degree of Robinson, courts 244. attorneys and staff of on behalf of Plaintiff's the law firm Greenberg claim in this case. This is comprised of work hours expended by the firm's partners Paul D. McGrady, attorney Janet S. $505 per hour; Dunning, Jr., and Steven J. Wadyka, and of-counsel Hajek whose billable rates ranged from $380 the firm's associates Jason B. Precious Murchison, rates ranged from $230 Elster, to Jeffrey P. and Marc Leipzig whose billable to $445 per hour; and, the firm's paralegals Maria Scavo and Laura A. Cappello whose billable rates ranged from $185 Attorneys in the firm began to $210 per hour. billing work to Plaintiff's matter in June 2008 and the invoices submitted for reimbursement end with the month of January 2009. This case involved a domain name owned by Defendant who is a foreign national not living in the United States. The work conducted by Plaintiff's attorneys conducting research on the ACPA, included drafting a complaint based on this research, defendant, under the and since this case involved a foreign national establishing the requirements of Hague Convention. The attorneys service of process prepared a discovery plan and drafted interrogatories and admission. attorneys spoke with one another, and discussed with Plaintiff shared legal the strategy of Finally, the research findings, its case as it progressed. This Court considers appears amount of Specifically, of-counsel time and labor on Plaintiff's matter. the attorneys employed the labor of attorney, 4 associates, of attorneys and staff a span of spent, eight months, with work hours While some amount of requirements of filing a motion for the novelty and difficulty a case like this does require the ACPA. an ACPA claim involves a defendant difficult to obtain. trademark law Often, as in this from whom recovery is This factor must be considered by this Court when addressing the opportunity costs pressing this team hours per month over skill and expertise in the area of and the procedural case, 20 This 1 increasing during the immediately prior to Plaintiff's this ACPA claim are not great, 2 partners, and 2 paralegals. on average, summary judgment in this Court. of it to this Court that Plaintiff's attorneys expended a reasonable months the following Barber factors: litigation. The customary fee to the attorneys in for like work can only be compared to the customary fee charged by like-sized firms with similar experience 167.2 hours a total of attorneys by other working billed on this $57,8 94.50. that the fee in this matter, This is similarly-sized firms were at that ACPA claims that defendants adjust to It the outset are of fee of in this case, this case local amount rules limitations this Court will time litigation. in nature due to in the It to is the clear fact locate and attorneys must in personum), and other variables unique consider that limitations of obtained, to On seeking a the circumstances the ACPA and the the Eastern District of Virginia. Defendant's infringement of this Regarding Court Plaintiff's marks was found that so deliberate, and performed in bad faith as to merit a statutory award to Plaintiff of $100,000. that worked on this The experience and ability of the firm case are sound, and the positive. There is no evidence that this within the legal and charged the attorneys' imposed on the attorneys in controversy and results willful, fee from infringement by foreign parties. incurred the in this (in rem or international service of process, time the is unclear what often difficult protecting trademarks with Plaintiff's in accord with can be unpredictable shifting jurisdiction the issue of agrees with experience practicing Eastern District of Virginia. expectations For the Plaintiff's attorneys charged Court charged jurisdiction. length of community in which the firm's reputation is case was "undesirable" suit arose. The nature the relationship between attorney and client appears to be positive and of some duration. Finally, attorney's fees awarded in similar cases have been commensurate with fees submitted in this case. After considering these established a lodestar prevailed on its allowable, this Barber factors, figure of claim and was Court sees $57,894.50. awarded the this Court has Since full the Plaintiff statutory amount no reason to diminish this lodestar figure. Plaintiff of $1,171.89. also submitted an invoice of This cost and Pacer research fees, This Court finds Upon full this Court that the Plaintiff An appropriate Order in the amount is comprised of Westlaw, and court these review of awards figure costs costs Lexis filing and delivery fees. are reasonable. attorney's the amount shall fees of and cost invoices, $59,066.39. issue. /s/ Claude M. Hilton United States District Judge Alexandria, Virginia 2009
]]>
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.
