" New Enchantment, LLC v. Journey Spa & Wellness Ctr., Inc. , No. SACV 12-1382 JGB (RNBx), 2014 WL 12558845, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) (citation and footnote omitted) (citing ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Money Mgmt. Int'l, Inc. , 374 F. App'x. 696, 697 (9th Cir. 2010) ; and then Rearden , 683 F.3d at 1206 ). Here, Plaintiff's actual intent to use the STONEĀ® mark is clear from the record.
See Camarillo v. City of Maywood, Civ. No. 07-03469, 2011 WL 3665028, at *9-10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011) (finding that $562.50 is a reasonable hourly rate for work performed by Los Angeles partners); ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Money Mgmt. Int'l., Inc., Civ. No. 07-04275, 2009 WL 52163, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2009), vacated on other grounds in 374 Fed. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2010) (awarding, based in part on "its own knowledge of hourly rates in the Los Angeles legal community," hourly rates of $576 and $594 per hour for partners in a trademark infringement and breach of contract case); cf. Langston v. N. Am. Asset Dev. Corp. Grp. Disability Plan, Civ. No. 08-02560, 2010 WL 1460201, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010) (awarding rate of $550 per hour for a partner located in Alameda, California, in an ERISA case). Although the court was able to find cases in which courts found fees exceeding the requested rate of $670 per hour in San Francisco were reasonable, plaintiff has not persuaded the court that $670 is a reasonable rate for the services Solomon and Tooch performed.