CrossFit, LLC v. Romero
1:24-cv-00297
| D. Haw. | May 5, 2025Background
- CrossFit, LLC filed suit against Paul Romero (d/b/a Makena Performance and Club Makena) and CrossFit Makena, L.P. for unauthorized use of the CrossFit trademark after an affiliate agreement terminated in April 2024.
- Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Defendants after filing for default and supporting declarations.
- Plaintiff sought $36,155 in attorneys’ fees and $633.16 in costs, with the majority of requested fees relating to out-of-state attorneys who had not formally appeared pro hac vice.
- The work for which fees were requested included legal research, drafting, and strategizing motions on behalf of CrossFit, mostly by out-of-state counsel.
- The Court reviewed prevailing market rates and proper procedure under local court rules regarding out-of-state attorney participation in federal cases.
- The Court issued a recommendation to grant in part and deny in part the request for attorneys' fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorneys' fees for out-of-state attorneys not admitted | Fees should be awarded; pro hac vice applications would be filed if needed | None (default) | Denied; out-of-state attorneys effectively "appeared" without admission |
| Fees for local counsel (Holden) | Reasonable hours at $550/hr | None (default) | Reduced rate to $495/hr; granted fees for 12.7 hours to local counsel |
| Taxable costs | Entitled as prevailing party | None (default) | Granted request for $600.08 in taxable costs |
| Non-taxable costs (postage) under HRS § 607-14 | Claims are "in the nature of assumpsit" so costs are recoverable | None (default) | Granted $33.08 in non-taxable costs under HRS 607-14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar method for attorneys’ fee calculation is standard)
- Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196 (application of lodestar in Ninth Circuit)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (prevailing market rate for attorneys’ fees is controlling)
- Tirona v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 821 F. Supp. 632 (time spent must be reasonable and necessary to outcome)
- TSA Int’l, Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Haw. 243 (nature of claims in assumpsit for purposes of awarding costs)