Oron Ordered to Pay Corbin Fisher's Legal Tab

LAS VEGAS — A federal judge gave the green light Tuesday for Corbin Fisher to collect $132,000 in legal fees from defunct file-locker site Oron.

Corbin Fisher, which reached a settlement deal with Oron for $550,000 that was later challenged by defendants and denied, had been seeking $215,000 in legal fees to pay off Randazza Legal Group, which litigated the case for the gay adult studio.

But after a review of the itemized bill U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro denied a number of fees for docketing and those duplicative due to plaintiff’s attorneys consulting together, as well as fees Corbin Fisher incurred as a result of litigation activities in Hong Kong.

"The court allows only the fee for the one attorney in the consultation with the highest hourly rate," Navarro said in her order.

Randazza Legal Group reported 325.90 labor hours working on the Oron copyright infringement case, incurring charges ranging from $400-$500 per hour for partners, $350 per hour for of counsel, $325 per hour for associate attorneys and $125 per hour for law clerks.

The Las Vegas firm also said counsel spent an additional 40 hours of labor to obtain satisfaction of an enforced judgment of the settlement deal and respond to defendant’s motion for disbursement of fees, resulting in an additional $15,000.

Oron counsel unsuccessfully argued before Navarro that Corbin Fisher was not entitled to any award of attorneys fees because the settlement agreement was not expressly enforced by the court through a consent decree.

Navarro said a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling over the definition of a "prevailing party" trumps its argument and that discussion of consent decrees is "wholly irrelevant" within context of the appeals court ruling.

"To support this proposition, defendant relies solely on an unreported case from the Northern District of New York," Navarro said. "The court does not find defendant’s argument persuasive. Instead, this court relies on controlling authority within the 9th Circuit."