DIRECTV, LLC v. Preston
1:14-cv-01256
C.D. Ill.May 18, 2017Background
- DirecTV sued Wild Berries Group, LLC (a restaurant), Stephanie Karonis, and Christina Preston alleging unauthorized use of DirecTV residential satellite service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). Complaint filed June 26, 2014.
- Defendants failed to respond; Court entered default against Wild Berries and Karonis; Court previously awarded $1,000 statutory damages and $3,877.57 in fees/costs against Wild Berries (Karonis not liable for statutory violation).
- DirecTV issued citations to discover assets to enforce judgment; corporate representatives (Stephanie Karonis, Denise Karonis, Christina Preston) failed to produce documents or appear, despite a Magistrate Judge’s order to comply.
- DirecTV moved to compel compliance and then sought additional attorney’s fees ($8,925) and costs ($161.74) for post-judgment enforcement efforts; Magistrate initially granted but vacated for lack of jurisdiction and referred to the district judge.
- Court applied Illinois supplementary-proceeding law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 69) and held noncompliance with citation orders justified awarding fees for collection efforts; awarded fees using lodestar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DirecTV may recover post-judgment attorney’s fees incurred enforcing its §605 judgment | DirecTV sought fees/costs for citation proceedings because defendants/third parties disobeyed court orders and prolonged enforcement | Third-party respondents untimely opposed the fee motion and offered no justification for noncompliance | Court awarded fees for enforcement under Illinois supplementary-proceeding authority; found entitlement based on noncompliance and prolonging litigation |
| Proper law to govern fee recovery for enforcement proceedings | DirecTV relied on §605’s fee-shifting and Rule 69; argued federal judgment fee award supports recovery for enforcement | Defendants invoked state enforcement procedures and timing objections | Court held Rule 69 directs use of state law for execution/supplementary proceedings; §605 provided substantive entitlement but Illinois law governs enforcement procedure |
| Appropriate method and hourly rates for calculating fees | DirecTV submitted 29.75 hours at $300/hr (associate rate) totaling $8,925 | Defendants disputed neither rates nor hours substantively but failed to produce timely opposition or market-rate evidence | Court applied lodestar, declined DirecTV’s unsupported $300/hr associate rate, used prior district findings: $200/hr for associate; awarded $5,950 in fees + $161.74 costs |
| Whether to strike untimely response to fee motion | DirecTV moved to strike late response under Local Rule 7.1(B)(2) | Third-party respondents filed months late without excuse | Court granted motion to strike the untimely response and struck the filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Ins. Co. v. Risk Mktg. Grp. Inc., 561 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2009) (federal courts apply state law for supplementary proceedings under Rule 69 and may fashion sanctions for violations)
- Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.) (lodestar method and requirement that fee-request hours reasonably relate to hours litigating merits)
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (fee applicant must produce satisfactory evidence of market rates; court may set reasonable rate if applicant fails to do so)
- Shales v. T. Manning Concrete, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (describing citation to discover assets as a tool to discover and apply nonexempt assets toward judgment)