RRLH, INC., a California corporation v. Hendrick Jan Barto, d/b/a LEISURE WORLD RESALES, INC.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RRLH, INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENDRICK JAN BARTO, d/b/a
LEISURE WORLD RESALES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-56071
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-03799-PSG-
RNB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hendrick Jan Barto appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding
attorney’s fees to RRLH, Inc. (“RRLH”) based on a finding that of Barto acted in
bad-faith in violating the district court’s prior order prohibiting Barto from using
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
RRLH’s trademark. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
abuse of discretion the district court’s award of attorney’s fees. Chalmers v. City
of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $29,730 in
attorney’s fees to RRLH. Spending seventy-eight hours filing and prosecuting the
contempt motion was reasonable in light of the distance between their attorney’s
office and the courthouse, Barto’s unauthorized filings, and Barto’s opposition to
the contempt motion. See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-
11 (9th Cir. 1986). The hourly rate RRLH’s attorneys charged was also reasonable
given their expertise, qualifications, and the rates charged by comparable attorneys.
See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --