Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Lizcano et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LADY Z. LIZCANO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-07588-NW
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND COSTS
Re: ECF No. 34
Plaintiff Innovative Sports Management (“Innovative”) owns the domestic commercial
exhibition rights to broadcast certain soccer games nationwide. Innovative sued Defendants Lady
Lizcano, Manuel Trujilio, and MLSJ, Inc. for displaying one of these soccer matches inside their
restaurant without a license.
On August 5, 2026, the Court granted Innovative’s motion for default judgment against
Defendants for Innovative’s claim under 47 U.S.C. § 553. ECF No. 32. The Court awarded
Innovative $8,500 in total damages (comprised of $1,000 in statutory damages and $7,500 in
enhanced damages, against all Defendants) and permitted Innovative to file a motion for attorney’s
fees and costs.
On August 19, 2026, Innovative filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 47
U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C). ECF No. 34. For the following reasons, Innovative’s motion is granted in
part and denied in part.1
1 Having considered the briefs and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes oral argument
is not required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and VACATES the hearing set for October 21,
2026.
Case 5:25-cv-07588-NW Document 38 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 47 U.S.C § 553(c)(2)(C), courts have discretion to “direct the recovery of full costs,
including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails” in a Cable &
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act case. In exercising that discretion, courts
apply the “lodestar” method. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). This method multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party
reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. (citation omitted).
“[C]ounsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed . . .
[which] may be reduced by the court where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case
was overstaffed and hours are duplicated; if the hours expended are deemed excessive or
otherwise unnecessary.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986).
“[A] district court may reduce a fee award if the amount of recovery was modest relative to the
amount the plaintiff initially sought.” Vargas v. Howell, 949 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2020)
(citation modified).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Attorney’s Fees
Innovative requests $16,562.50 in attorney’s fees, which breaks down as follows:
• 13.45 hours of work at an hourly rate of $750 by attorney Thomas P. Riley, totaling
$10,087.50;
• 6 hours of travel time for attorney Thomas P. Riley at an hourly rate of $375, totaling
$2,250; and
• 13 hours at an hourly rate of $325 by an unidentified research attorney, totaling $4,225.
ECF No. 34-1.
The Court agrees that the hourly rates requested by Innovative are reasonable. See
Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Lizcano, No. 24-cv-02678-PCP, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17,
2025) (approving hourly rates of $675 for Mr. Riley and $325 for research attorney). The Court
concludes, however, that it is appropriate to reduce the hours sought by Innovative for two
reasons.
Case 5:25-cv-07588-NW Document 38 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
First, Innovative states that “[b]illable hours for legal services rendered [were]
reconstructed by way of a thorough review of the files themselves.” Decl. of Thomas P. Riley,
ECF No. 34-1, at ¶ 7. “Because the billing records were not created contemporaneously, the Court
finds that they are inherently less reliable and susceptible to time inflation.” Innovative Sports
Mgmt., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 22-cv-05793-BLF, 2023 WL 4686018, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2023).
The Court finds that it is reasonable to reduce the requested fee award by twenty-five percent
given the non-contemporaneous nature of Mr. Riley’s billing records. See id. (applying a twenty-
five percent reduction); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 (1983) (“[T]he District
Court properly considered the reasonableness of the hours expended, and reduced the hours of one
attorney by thirty percent to account for his inexperience and failure to keep contemporaneous
time records.”).
Second, the Court finds that an additional ten percent reduction is warranted because
counsel’s “firm routinely files these sorts of claims” and much of the time billed for extensive
research, including for the instant motion for attorney’s fees, is therefore likely unnecessary.
Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Arias, No. 22-cv-05773-WHA, 2023 WL 4238494, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. June 27, 2023). In fact, the motion states the following:
With respect to the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented,
while the field of piracy law in general often involves novel and
difficult questions, this specific case did not present any unusual
challenges. This case did not preclude counsel from taking any other
employment, there were no time limits imposed by the client or the
circumstances.
ECF No. 34 at 6.
Applying the twenty-five percent and ten percent reductions (35% total) brings the total
billable amount from $16,562.50 to $11,593.75.
B. Costs
Innovative requests costs in the amount of $1,767.22. This amount includes $405 for the
complaint filing fee, $612.22 in service of process fees, and $750 for investigative expenses. The
Court finds it appropriate to limit costs “to the complaint filing fee, [and] the service of process
charges . . . Pre-filing investigative costs are not costs incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit and thus
Case 5:25-cv-07588-NW Document 38 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
not recoverable.” Arias, 2023 WL 4238494, at *2 (quoting G & G Closed Cnir. Events, LLC v.
Segura, No. 20-cv-07576 WHA, 2021 WL 4978456, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021)). The Court
therefore awards Innovative $1,017.22 in costs.
/ / /
III. CONCLUSION
Innovative’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court awards Innovative
$11,593.75 in attorney’s fees and $1,017.22 in costs, totaling $12,610.97.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-07588-NW Document 38 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4