Gopets Ltd., a limited liability Korean corporation v. Edward Hise, an individual;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOPETS LTD., a limited liability Korean
corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD HISE, an individual; et al.,
Defendants,
And
JOSEPH HISE, an individual,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-56863
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01870-AHM-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
GOPETS LTD., a limited liability Korean
corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD HISE, an individual,
Defendant - Appellant,
No. 12-56864
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01870-AHM-
VBK
FILED
MAR 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

And
JOSEPH HISE, an individual and
DIGITAL OVERTURE, INC., a California
corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alvin Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 6, 2014**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and D.W. NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Hise (“Hise”) appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to
GoPets LTD. (“GoPets”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
We decline to revisit the merits of the underlying claims we already have
decided, GoPets LTD v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011), as that decision is
law of the case, United States v. Jingles, 702 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir. 2012).
The district court did not err in deeming this case exceptional. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(a). The record supports the district court’s finding that Hise acted willfully
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

and in bad faith. Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000); see also
TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
district court’s willfulness finding is supported by evidence that defendants
planned to mislead site visitors and knew that their conduct confused consumers.”).
The district court awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
Hise did not challenge the original $76,260 in fees awarded while his first appeal
was pending. On remand, the district court determined that half of the original fee
award was reasonably attributable to the gopets.com claim, and thus reduced the
original award by half. The district court also reasonably reduced excessive hours
claims for the preparation of a straightforward fee application. The district court
properly explained its reasoning and did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --