) as 16 W ae 19 20 22 23 24 26 2 28 STEVEN M. STANLEY LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. STANLEY 1801 Oak Street, Suite 151 Bakersfield, California 93301 Telephone (661) 334-2735 Facsimile (661) 334-2737 Attorneys for Debtor/ ITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT INTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DIVISION CASE NO. : NDO3-12487RR ADV. NO. 04-01005 In re GERALDINE REDMOND Chapter 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND LIVESTOCK CO., LLC Plaintiff vs. April 20, 2005 11:00 a.m. 1415 State street Courtroom 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 GERALDINE REDMOND The Motion of Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock, plaintiff lin the above captioned matter, for Leave to Amend Complaint bjecting to Discharge of Debtor was heard by the above entitled ourt on April 20, 2005, the Honorable Robin Riblet, Uflite: ee tates Bankruptcy Court presiding. David Blake Chatfield g¢ = bppeared on behalf of the plaintiff. steven M. Stanley apseard? n behalf of the defendant. AW & SS JG 7 bes peThe court havin wed the Mot: and the opposition 2 [knereto, and for good cause appearing, 3 s Y ORDERED: i 1. The Motion is denied, $ ye Ae atone ab bn Avett ‘ he 7 pated: may 38 2005 Rater Apel 28 Robin Riblet 8 United States Bankruptcy Judge 18 1s 20 2 22 24 25 26 27 2810 a 12 13 16 1s 16 uv ae 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Steven M. Stanley, declare that the follot true and correc: ing facts are I ama citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within entitled Cause, I am an employee of LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. STANLEY, and my business address is 1801 Oak Street, Suite 151, Bakersfield, California 93301. I served by mail the following document: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR I enclosed a true copy of said document(s) in an envelope, addressed as follows: David Blake Chatfield Law Offices of David Blake Chatfield 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, California 91361 I am readily familiar with my firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with United States Postal Service, to wit, that correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. Tt sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing on May 18, 2005, following ordinary business practices. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 18, 2005. Steven M. StanleyExhibit 1720 24 2 2 a 2s 26 2 David Blake Chatfield, State Bar No. 38991 Law Offies Of David Blake Chatfield 2625 Townspate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, California 91361 Telephone: 805-267-1220 Facsimile: 805-267-1211 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, NORTHERN DIVISION } Case No.: NDO3-12487 RR. Inte: 3 Adv. No: 04-1005 GERALDINE JAY REDMOND, 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO. Debtor. 4 DEBTOR'S DISCHARGE J SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND ) LIVESTOCK CO., LLC., ) ) Date: May 25, 2005 ) Time: 10:00am. Plaintiff ) Dept: 201 x ENTERED. GERALDINE JAY REDMOND, ) ) Defendant ) ) Pepe meere rer Nk Sa er) TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNI The motion of plaintiff Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC, for an Ordé dismissing complaint objecting to debtor's discharge was heard on May 25, 2005. aM [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSINC COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR - 1 i hiaGOOD CAUSE APPEARING, based upon the motion submitted by the plaintiff IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the adversary complaint objecting to debtor's 44 || discharge in Adv. No. 04-1005, is dismissed yt Pa (a) | DATEDLwen 2S 2005 hata, Rater Judge of the Bankruptcy Court 20 2 2 23 4 2 26 n 28 I [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT OBIECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR -2NOTE TO USERS OF THIS FORM: Physically attach this form as the last page of the proposed Order or Judgment. Do not fie this form as a separate document. e ne CHAPTER, Oebior_ | CASE NUMBER e NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF MAILING e TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST: 1. Youare hereby notified, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9021-1(a)(1\E), that a judgment or order entitled (specify): * s MAY 25 ong5 oe was entered on (specify date): i s Devt (oke bs. fr mnie 2 | hereby ost hat maid a Copy oF nce and a tue Copy ofthe order or judgment he persons and s entities on the attached service ist on (specify date): MAY 25 apg pate: = MAY 25 2005 JON 0. CERETTO Clerk of the Bankruptey Court w laeste Ue abel e ek ‘Clerk bean approved fr we bythe Unte Sats Banuptey Cou forthe Cana Oates ocattemia. —F 9024-1.420 2 2 23 4 2s 2% a|| 2 SERVICE LIST Case No. ND03-12487-RR ‘Adv. No, 04-1005 Geraldine Redmond 12808 Greene Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 Attomey for Debtor/Defendant Steven M. Stanley 1801 Oak Street Suite 151 Bakersfield, CA 93301 United States Trustee 21051 Warmer Center Lane, Suite 115 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Trustee Sandra McBeth 2450 Professional Parkway, Suite 240 ‘Santa Maria, CA 93455 Allen Financial Insurance Group 3519 East Shea Phoenix, AZ 85028 Avalon Engineering 3501 Canada Larga Road Ventura, CA 93001 Avalon Farms Canada Larga Road Ventura, CA 93001 Big Dipper Water Co. 3370 Country Way Acton, CA 93510 Dr. Rick Friedman 2100 W. 3rd Street Los Angeles, CA 90057 Evergreen Animal Hospital 23947 San Fernando Road ‘Newhall, CA 91351 [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR - 4FCNB Processing Center 9310 SW Gemini Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97078-0001 Fernando's Check Cashing 2358 East Main Street Ventura, CA 93001 Ford Motor Credit National Bankruptcy Service P.O. Box 537901 Livonia, MI 48153-7901 Ford Motor Credit P.O. Box 7289 Pasadena, CA 91109-7289 Franchise Tax Board P.O. Box 942867 Sacramento, CA 94267-0011 Hennelly and Grosfeld LLP 17383 Sunset Blvd., Ste 420 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Intemal Revenue Service Insolvency Section Stop HQ 5430 P.O. Box 99 San Jose, CA 95103 Law Offices of James Thompson 12100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1940 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Miguel Cervantes 1208 East Ventura Street Santa Paula, CA 93060 Mike's Tire Man 20529 Soledad Cyn Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 Proflame Gas 11370 Pendleton Sun Valley, CA 91352 [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT OBJECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR -$SCV Qualitycare 23929 South McBean Pkwy e 2 Suite 100 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sulpher Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC 3501 Canada Large Road e 5 Ventura, CA 93001 6 Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC 1 clo David Blake Chatfield 425 Zeno Way 5 Oak Park, CA 91377 Tom Secrist Horses P.O. Box 119 Dubois, WY 82513-0119 Ventura Hay Co. u 11570N. Ventura Ave, b Ojai, CA 93023 “ Verizon Wireless e P.O. Box 4001 + Inglewood, CA 90313-4001 6 ” e " 8 20 2 e 2 3 “ e 25 26 n| ° 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT OBIECTING TO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR -6Exhibit 18Farm B18 (Ocal Form 1) ie) United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California TATE Siais Street, Santa Barbara, CA OS101-257T ORR LERT CASE DEBTOR(S) INFORMATION: BANKRUPTCY NO. NO 03-12487-AR REDMOND, GERALDINE SSN: }OOCKX-7543 CHAPTER 7 EIN: NA ‘AKA REDMOND, GERALDINE JAY ‘AKA REDMOND: JAY $2808 GREENE AVENUE. LOS ANGELES, CA 90086 tt eppearing thatthe debtor a ented toa dacharge, 7 1S ORDERED: The debtor is granted « dlecharge under section 727 of tite 11, United States Code, (ihe Bankruptoy Code). BY THE COURT, Jon 0. Ceretto: Date: Judy 28, 2008, Clerk of the Court SEE THE BACK OF THIS ORDER FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION (For rev. 1/98) VAN-30 67 IMC.Exhibit 19Name Steven M. Stanley SBN 146021 Address 1801 Oak Street, Suite 151 Bakersfield, California 93301 Tolophone 661-334-2735 (A) 661-334-2737 yas A AtomeytorOeriors) | Atomey’s E reortapese | SaeBeri0.No. 146021 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. List all names including trade names used by Debtor(s) within last | Chapter 13 CaseNo: LA 03342637-EC 6 years) 1 | CHAPTER 13 PLAN John A. Redmond Wiiiees cc Ccrsorrons MEETING: | Carmedmens Date: February 9, 2004 | Time: 11200 a. | Place:725 South Pigueroa, Rm 103 Conrmaiation Hearne Date: arch 25, 2004 Time: 1230 p.m. 255 E. Temple, Crtrm 1639 NOTICE This pian is proposed by the above debior.” The debtor attests, under penalty of perjury, thatthe information stated in this plan is accurate. Creditors cannot vote on this plan. However, creditors may object to this plan being confirmed pursuant to 11 USC. § 1324, Any objection must be in wring and must be fled with the court and served upon the debtor, debtor's. attorney (ifany), ang the chapter 13 trustee not less than 8 days before the date set for the meeting of creditors. Unless an ‘objection is fled and served, the court may confirm this chapter 13 pian. The plan, if confirmed, modifies the nights and duties (ofthe debtor and crecitors tothe treatment provided in the plan as confirmed, withthe following IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS. Holders of secured claims will be paid on their secured claims according to this plan unless the secured creditor files a proof of cleimin diferent amount than that provided inthe plan. Ifa secured creditor fies a proof of lam, that creditor willbe paid accorsiag to that editor's proof of claim, unless the Court orders otherwise. HOLDERS OF ALL OTHER CLAIMS (INCLUDING PRIORITY CLAIMS, DEFICIENCY CLAIMS, ALL OTHER KINDS OF UNSECURED CLAIMS) MUST TIMELY FILE PROOFS OF CLAIM, OR THEY WILL NOT BE PAID ANY AMOUNT. Adebtor ‘who confirms a chapter 13 plan may be eligible thereafter to receive a discharge of the debts to the extent specified in MUS. § 1928, *Any reference fo the singular shall include the plural in the case of joint debtors. “Ti To Pandata By Order ta Unted Slane BapIey Cour te Comal DRT oT CaN Revised December 2003, F 3015-1.4 an #Chapter 13 Pan (0) -Page 2 2000 USRC, Cetra Distrito Ctforaia Case No. Debior proposes the folowing chapter 19 plan and makes the folowing decaratiors: |. PROPERTIES AND FUTURE EARNINGS OR INCOME SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE ‘TRUSTEE: DDebior submits the folowing to the supervision and control of the trustee: ‘A. Payments by debtor of § 1000 per month for__60__ months. This monthly payment will begin within 20 days ofthe date the petiion was fled at Debtor will pay £2 % of the allowed claims of general unsecured creditors, If that percentage is less than 100%, the debtor will pay the plan payment stated in this plan for the ful term of the pian. Ifthe allowed general unsecured claims flled by creditors in this case total more than the amount stated inthis plan, the debtor wil (1) obtain an order increasing the duration and/or amount of the monthly pian payment to provide for an ‘amount sufficient to pay the above-stated percentage of the allowed claims fled by the unsecured creditors, or (2) Cbiain an order reducing the stated percentage. Failure to do one of the above may result in dismissal ofthe case, Ifthe alowed general unsecured claims filed by creditor inthis case total less than the amount stated in this plan, the ‘above monthly plan payment may be sufficient to pay higher than the stated percent to general unsecured creditors. Inthis event, the debtor must stil make the stated plan payment forthe ful plan term, and the trustee shal disburse said funds in payment of allowed unsecured claims up to payment of 100% thereof. B. Amounts necessary for the payment of postpetiion claims allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 1305. . Other propery: (speci property or indicate none) Debtor will pay timely ll post-confrrnation tax labilies directly to the appropriate taxing authorities. Il. ORDER OF PAYMENTS; CLASSIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF CLAIMS: Except as ctherwise provided in the plan cr by court order, the chapter 13 trustee shall disburse all availabe funds for the payment of claims as follows: 4. ORDER OF PAYMENTS: 41. The chapter 13 trustee's fee up to but not more than the amount accrued on actual payments made to date; 2. Administrative expenses (including but nt limited 1o attomey's fees) in an amount up to but not more than _D_% Cf each plan payment until pa in ful; 3. Pro rata to all other classes up fo the monthly amounts set forth in the plan, except that no payment shall be made ‘on Class Five claims untl al Class One claims have been paid in full Tis for mandala by Oe Se Unad Sales Barirpiay Coun Tor De Cantal Batic of Calera ‘Revised Jamsary 2001 F 3015-1.1(Chapter 1 Pa Rev 1203) 2, CLASSIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF CLAIM 1 03 USRC, Cental Drie of Caria Case Ne CLASS ONE - Allowed unsecured ciaims enttled to priorty under 11 U.S.C. § 507. Debtor will pay Class One aims in full in deferred payments, provided a proof of claim has been filed, as follows: AMOUNT OF PRIORITY MONTHLY NUMBER OF TOTAL CLAM PAYMENT PAYMENTS. «PAYMENT Administrative Expenses (1) Trustee's Fee (estmated at 1% of plan payrant amounts) (2) Attorney's Fees foe Se (@) Other seccegpente. | Speers anes, bi. eeraneetencs | $oanOmeet $US Rear pots eaten c. Franchise Tax Board SS sah ee d. Other, n/a Sas Se ee Cobian $ Oe fan ane S, « 5 CLASS TWO - Claims secured solely by real property thats the debtor's PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE. ‘a._Dabtor will make all postpetition payments pursuant othe promissory note and deed of rust on the following Claims on which the obligation matures AFTER the final payment is due under this plan: 1. Ol Dirwctiy to Trustee: (rame of ereditor(s) here) 2. @ Directv to Creditor Citimortgage, Inc. (name of creditor(s) here) . Debtor will make all postpetton payments pursuant tothe promissory note and deed of trust onthe following Claims on which the obligation matures BEFORE the final payment is due under this plan: (name of crecttor(s) here). Debtor will cure all repetition arrearages through the plan payment as set forth below: Name of Creditor and --AMOUNTOF «INTEREST MONTHLY NUMBEROF TOTAL ARREARAGES "RATE PAYMENT © MONTHS PAYMENT: ‘Last Four Digits of ‘Loan Number Name Loan No. (Cure of default Name Loan No. Cure of default Name eh Se Cure of default 3 %. 8. Name Loan No. Cure of default “Tis Tay By Order he Une Sana BAe] Cour Tare Cova ser ot Calor Revises Oscembar 2003 F 3015-1.1‘Coaper 13 Pan (60) Page Case No: 1d. Pursuant to Sections 1322(c)(2) and 1325(a)(6), Debtor wil pay the following ciaim(s) on which the obligation ‘matures BEFORE the final payment Is cue under this plan as follows: Nawe oF cREDTOR AMOUNT INTEREST = MONTIRY. «NUMBER TOTAL PAYMENT RATE PAYMENT oF MONTHS 8 % 8. # s s. % ots se ee % Ss. fg Each creditor wil retain its lien untl its secured claim is paid in full or it is otherwise satisfied by surrender, agreement, or order ofthe court 3, CLASS THREE - Secured claims on real or personal property which are paid in full during the term of the plan, including but nt limited to claim which is not secured solely by a secur interest in the debtor's principal residence. (Class Three claims wil be paidin monthly payments as setforh below. Debtor is the owner of the propery serving a3 e ‘collateral, is aware of its condition and, where the secured claims less than the amount of the debt, believes its value is as set fortn below under the heading “Amount of Secured Ciaim." The value as of the effective date of the plan cf the series of payments to be distributed under the plan on account of each secured claim provided for by the plan is equal to the allowed amount of such claim. Any unsecured amount resulting from a deficiency in the value of the collaterals included in Class Five, or if appropriate, in Class One. e Name of Creditor TOTAL AMOUNTOF INTEREST. AVOUNTOF —WONTHLY TOTAL TOTAL #3 avout “Secure fareon Unsecune> PAYMENT NUMBER PAYWENT Steve “Gam Secure “cuan oF ‘Loan Number can pavnenrs Nome Loan No- . s %. 8 s piles e Name Loan No: 5 s %. 8 s estes Rempees S Lsa Loan Ne ¥ s %. s s esis ° Nave Lean Ne s %. 8 s whe s Nee Lean No: 8 % s 8 wiles e Each creditor will retain its lien until (1) if oversecured, its secured claim is paid in full, or (2) if undersecured, its ‘Secured claim is paid in full and the debtor receives a discharge under chapter 13. e Tis frm 5 andar by Orr ha Uried Sats Bale Coun Ta ba Comba SES Calera vied January 2001, F 3015-1.1Center 13 Pen (0)- Pages 2000 USMC, Cente Duet of Cars Case No.: 4, CLASS FOUR - Claims secured by real or personal property cther than the debtors principal residence for which ‘arrearages are paid as par ofthe plan payment andfor which the ongoing obligation wil be paid according tothe terms, Cf the agreement to the party stated below. The value as of the effective date ofthe plan ofthe series of payments 10 be distributed under the plan on account of each secured ciaim provided for by the plan is equal tothe alowed amount ‘of such claim. Defaults willbe cured using the interest rate set forth below. (it more than two creditors, attach separate: exhibits) Name of Creditor and AMOUNT CE, TERESTRATE MCYTHLY MUMBER.OF TOTAL PAYMENT ARREARAGES PAYMENT "MONTHS ene ARREARAGES Name Loan No. 1) Cure of default s # $ 2), Regular monthly payment #. Hy To the trustee as part of the plan payment during the life ofthe plan and thereafter directly to the creditor. OF Directly to the creditor Nome Loan No. are eee 1) Cure of default pecan oe gud $ 2), Regular monthly payment Seas s. C1 To the trustee as partof the plan payment during the life ofthe plan and thereafter directly to the creditor. 1D Directly to the creditor Each creditor wil retain its en until (1) if oversecured, its secured claim is paid in ful, or (2) if undersecured, its ‘secured claim is paid in full and the debtor recelves a discharge under chapter 13. ‘5. CLASS FIVE - Now-priorty Unsecured Claims. Debtor estimates that non-prority general unsecured claims total the sum of $43,836.26 , __. Class Five claims will be paid as folows, subject to the terms of 1A herein: (Check one box only.) ek Class Five claims (including allowed unsecured amounts from Class Three) are of one class and willbe paid pro rata at _37_% of such claims. Unless the plan provides for payment of 100% to unsecured creditors, the debior willpay all disposable income tothe trustee for a least 36 months and wil submitstatements ofincome tothe trustee on a semi-annual/annual basis. The amount of income shall be reviewed by the trustee who may petition the court 10 increase the monthly payments for cause, oR ‘This Toe ancy by Order the Uated Stes Bartrpcy Cou ler he Cantal Dae of Cafoms vied Jansen 2001 F 3015-1.1Chapter 13 Pas (60) Pate 2000 USBC, Ceara ier of Catforais Case Class Five claims willbe divided into subclasses as shown on the attached Exhibit ‘and paid prorata in each subclass as incicated therein. The Plan provides the same treatment for each claim within each subclass of Class Five. The claims of each subclass are substantaly similar and the division ino subclasses does not discriminate unfairly 6, CLASS SIX - Postpettion claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1308. Postpetiion claims allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 1905 will be ‘paid in full in equal month instalments commencing no later than 30 days ater entry of an order allowing such claims. ‘and concluding on the date of the last payment under the plan, provided sufficient funds are avalable under the plan (or amended plan, COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 7- The value as ofthe etfecive date ofthe plan of propery to be distributed under the plan on account of each alowed claimis not less than the amount that would be paid on such claimif the estate ofthe debtor ‘were liquidated under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on such date. The percentage cistrbution to general unsecured creditors in chapter 7 would be (estimate) %. IV. PLAN ANALYSIS - TOTAL PAYMENT PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE PLAN CLASS ONE Unpaid attorney's fae . . st eae Intemal Revenue Service - eee eh $0. Franchise Tax Board Other Other ‘CLASS TWO ‘CLASS THREE CLASS FOUR, CLASS FIVE SUB-TOTAL | ei TRUSTEE'S FEES (Estimate 11% unless advised otherwise.) TOTAL PAYMENTS . \V. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR PAYMENTS: Ifthe plan provides for payments over a period of more than 36 months, cause exists as follows: “The plan proposes to pay atleast 70% of unsecured claims. XX oer __TO meet Chapter 7 liquidation test VL. DEBTOR'S ABILITY TO MAKE PAYMENTS AND COMPLY WITH BANKRUPTCY CODE ‘Debior willbe able to make all payments and comply with all provisions ofthe plan, based upon the availabilty tothe debtor (of the income and property the debtor proposes to use to complete the plan. This plan complies withthe provisions of chapter 13 and al other applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Any fea, charge, or amount required to be paid under the United States Code or required by the plan to be paid before confirmation has been paid or wil be paid prior to confirmation. The plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law. Tis Far analy by Orr oa Une Sates BBG) Coun Tr Ba Cone Oa oT Cara ‘Revised January 2001 F 3015-1.1{Chaper 13 Plan Re. 1203)- Page 7 2003 USBC, Central Ditris of Calera VU. OTHER PROVISIONS A. Debtor rejects the following executory contracts and unexpired leases: B. Debtor assumes the executory contracts or unexpired leases sel forth in this section. As to each contractor lease ‘assumed, any defaults therein and debtor's proposal for cure of said defaults) is described. Evidence satisfying al ‘requirements for assumption is provided in a separately fled pleading. C. In addition to the payments specified in Section I! herein, the debtor will make regular payments directly to the faliowing American Honda Finance Corp New Holland Credit Co. D. Debtor hereby surrenders the following personal or real property: E. Miscellaneous provisions (speci F. The trustee is authorized to disburse funds after the date of confirmation in open court Tier STG by Orr Und SSS BaTiUPEY CO ere CRATE ORES COTO Revised December 2008, F 3015-1.1‘Chaper13 Pim e120). Page 2003 USBC, Central Dist of Calorie Case Ni REVESTMENT OF PROPERTY Property ofthe estate shall not revestin the debtor uni such ime as a discharge is granted or the case is dismissed Revestment shall be subject to all lens and encumbrances in existence when the case was fled, except those liens avoided by court order or extinguished by operation of law. In the event the case is converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 ofthe Bankruptcy Code, the property ofthe estate shall vest in accordance with applicable law. ‘After confirmation ofthe plan, the chapter 13 trustee shall have no further authority or fiduciary duty regarding use, Sale, of refinance of property ofthe estate, except to respond to any mation for proposed use, sale, or refinance as Tequited by the Chapter 13 General Order of this court. Prior to any discharge or dismissal, the debtor must seek eae Se ans seers Reais Zz LIBEL, ‘tiomay for Debtor(s) | deciare under penalty of perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct, Benktt/ ura comme SGedn A Babee os cxoasedon: it fo Ba Joint Debior THis a ana By Orr ae Ura Seay BRIE] COU Te Coal OS a CaN ‘Rewsed December 2003, F 3015-1.1Fons aco ~ ~ : United States Bankruptcy Court ,., Central District of California John A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond cue no, LA03-42637-EC Dever co SUMMARY OF SCHEDULES trical aso each schedule whether hat schedule is allacned anc state he numberof pages in each. Report the ftas fom Schedles A,B, eee 0 2eee Sones proved, Ads the amounts om Schedules A and B Io determine the tial amount ofthe debtors assets. Ad the ‘Srouns fom Schedles O,£, and io determine ne ta armour ofthe deta’ abies. AMOUNTS SCHEDULED j NAME OF SCHEOULE No.orsHeets| ASSETS ABILITIES: omer, 1A Real Proserty yes 1 ls. 456,000.00 9 - Personal Poverty Yes 4 s 74,152.00 [3 1 - Property Ciaines yes 1 As Boro! | 2 crestor Hoos yes 1 § | 2 Secret aims, 2 | & - crests Hotsng Unsecured] YES 1 5 | ©” ProntyGaims i 4) & - crestor Haising Unsecues| YES 3 i Nongrierty Claims F | ¢ -cxacuory conacsane | YES 1 i “Unexpwed Leases i H - Codebors Yes 1 i | 1 current income of Yes 1 4 | tediat Bebe) J+ Curent Expensturesot | YES 1 Iranidul Deter) otal Numb of Sheets Wa Soeaes *] 15 Total Assets. 530,152.00 Oe Bue Total abies » 382,874.11romuaes ~ ~ "roe same __J0nn A. Redmond & Maureen C. Recrnond cane __LAO8-42637-EC SCHEDULE A - REAL PROPERTY Except as directed below, list all real propery in which the debtor has any legal, equitable, or future interest, including all property owned as a co-tenant, community property, or in which the debtor has a ife estate, Include eny property in which the debtor holds rights and powers exercisable for the debtor's own benefit. If the debtor is married, State whether husband, wife, or both own the property by placing an *H," "W," “J.” or *C" in the column labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community.” Ifthe debtor holds no interest in real property, write "None* under "Description ‘and Location of Property.” Do not include interests in executory contracts and unexpired leases on this schedule. List them in Schedule G - Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases. If an entity claims to have a lien or hold a secured interest in any property, state the amount of the secured ciaim. See Schedule D. If no entity claims to hold @ secured interest in the property, write “None” in the column labeled "Amount of Secured Claim.” If the debtor is an individual or if a joint petition is filed, state the amount of any exemption claimed in the property only in Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exempt. | cree ete f| er ited LOCATION OF NATURE OF DEBTOR'S £7 PROPERTY WITHOUT "SECURED aoe wwuascammes |i] "Sea a 38) “Gxvetenon Sing Family Resience © 180.000.00 21636000 12808 Greene Avenue Ie anges Cm 9088 2 acres vacant land c 6,000.00 ‘None Reding Calfomia a? 46,000.00 (Ropar ans on Summary of Sehedan)~ ~ Foam a88 "10881 John A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond daueieeee nv (350 No Desi Wrenn) SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY Except as directed below, lst all personal property of the debtor of whatever kind. If the debtor has no property in cone or more of the categories, place an "X" in the appropriate position in the column labeled "None." If additional Space is needed in any category, attach a separate sheet property identified with the case name, case number, and the number of the category. If the debtor is married, state whether husband, wife, or both own the property by placing ‘an "H" "W."°U." of *C" in the colurnn labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community.” If the debtor is an individual or joint pettion is fled, state the amount of any exemptions claimed oniy in Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exemot. Do not list interests in executory contracts and unexpired leases on this schedule. List them in Schedule G- xecutory Contracts and Unexpired Leases. \f the property is being held for the debtor by someone else, state that person’s name and address under ‘Description and Location of Property.” | B=) wascervaueor cxscpnonis.otron 2] [5 74,152.00 {tmede amount om any continuation sheets stached. Report tel aon ‘Summary of Sebwaes)~ ~ FORM BEC 1880) “John A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond faces inve ase Na E ‘Debtor ison) SCHEDULE C - PROPERTY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT Debtor ects the exertion to which debtors enes under \Gheck one box) [) 11Usc. §5220X1) Exemptions provides in 11 USC §522(0, Noie: These exeripon ae avaiabe oni cain sates. Tl usc. s522042). Exemptions avaabi under sppcabe arbanrupe feral ews. eae or fla where te cabo’ comicie Fo Boon locale forthe 160 days mediately precoding te Sng ofthe pettion, of for a lenger potion of me "80-day period tan in any the place, anc the debtors interest asa tenant by the entirety or joint enant tthe extent he intrest exempt om process under applicable nenbarkrupty aw eae Soe a | eee Seren Seawren ieee aa = =a aac eee ahs 70101 ie aa ces 1100 sa10n0 Ey cen. sponse aa peices Semen ms sass See ae ee ae ce cer root «so10 15100 fees rah 0 an eam pant cease a re pera ownncoenisee | ccPTO400 cee zo Security) ty 920 Ne Sto «metg O18 Ney ee Soba her 37 - 08 ~ ~ Farn800 inre_donn A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond eS 1A03-42697-EC re ase No, Dabo ainowe SCHEDULE D - CREDITORS HOLDING SECURED CLAIMS State the name, mailing address, including zip code and lst four digits of any account numberof al entities holding claims secured by propeny ofthe debit as ofthe date of filing ofthe petison. The complete account number of any account he debtor has withthe creditors etal the muste ard the ceditor and may be provided ithe debtor chooses todo so. List creditor holding all types of secured interes Sich as judgment ces, gamishmens, statutory Viens, marigages, deeds of rust and other security interests. List reitors in alphabetical order tothe exten practicable. Ill secured creditors will ot fit on this page, use the continuation sheet provided If any entity other than a spouse ina joint case may be jointly liable ona ciim, place an “X" in the cofurn labeled “Codebtor,” include the enihy onthe appropriate schedule of creditors, and complete Schedule H - Codebtor. Ifa joint peton is fle, state whether hsband, wife, Boh of them or the martal comunity may be liable on each claim by placing an "H",“"W", J", or "C" nthe columa labeled "Husbang, Wife, Jom, or Commanty” Ifthe clam i contingent, place an "X" in the column labeled “Connngent." If the claim is ated, place an °X" in the column labeled “Unligudated." If the elaim is disputed, pace an “X" inthe column labeled “Disputed.” (fou may need to place an “"X" in more than one ofthese tree columzs.) Report he total of al claims listed on this schedule inthe box labeled “Tota” on the las sheet ofthe completed schedule. Report hs ttl eso on the Summary oF Schedules, chek his box ifdebior has no ertrs olin secured claims to report hs Schedule D. OF. cua wirhour DEDUCTING ‘VALUE OF COLLATERAL DATE CLAIM WAS INCURRED, NATURE OF LIEN, AND. DESCRIPTION AND MARKET ‘VALUE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TOLIEN ‘CREDITOR'S NAME, MAILING ADDRESS INCLUDING z1P Cope, AND ACCOUNT NUMBER, (Seetnuruetons above) : 5 [ACCOUNT NO. 991-191-4970373-000' Lien: PMSI lamer Honda Finance Corp Security 2002 Honda Civic 0. Box 6070 ig cypress, CA 90630-5070 VALUES 714,500.00 Lien: Pmt SCaRiaE ce Oe |Secunty: 2000 Honda Civic P.O. Box 6070 5,669.60 ICypress, CA 90630-6070 VALUES 7,000.00. [ACcOUNT NO.0001987273-6 Lien: Deed of Trust Security: Single Femily [Ctimortgage, Inc, IP.0. Box 9447 Re 216,368.00 IGaithersburg, MO 20698-9442 VALUES 450,000.00) Lien: PSI |Security: Sooner Trailer VALUES Sioal>| $990,087.85, _continuation sheets attached ‘(Total of this page)} zens “Toul | $259,057 85 (Use onion al (Repor total also on Summary of Schedles) 19ng 4 Ne ep tat, 170 «8508 1A03-42637-EC. inndohn A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond een Weary Deir SCHEDULE E - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED PRIORITY CLAIMS, A complete list of claim ented to priority listed separately by typeof pity, isto bese forth on the sheet provided. Only holders cf unsecured clams entitled to pont shouldbe listed inthis schedule. Inthe boxes provided onthe attached sheets, sate the nam, mailing ‘Bares incloding ip cade, anc ast fou digits of the account number, ifany, ofall entties holding prot claims against the debtor or the $ropert ofthe debior aso he date ofthe ling of the peion. The complete account numberof any account the debtor has with the eedior is “efile ustee and the creditor and may be provided ithe debxor chooses fo dos. any ent other han a spouse ina joint case may be oily lable on 2 claim place an "Xin the column labeled "Cadebtor.” include the mity on the soprophate schedule of creditor, and complete Schedule H-Codebtos. If joint petition is fled, state whether husband, wif, both tener the martal community may be liable on each claim by placing an"H.""W,",* or "C" in the column labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, ot Community Ifthe esi is contingent, place an “X" in the column labeled "Contingent. Ifthe claim sunliquiésted, place an "X"in he column labeled ‘Unlisted Ifthe claim is spud, pace an "X" inthe column labeled “Dispute.” (You may need to place an "X in more than one of these thre columns) Report the total of las listed on each sheet inthe box labeled “Subtotal” on each sheet. Report he total ofall claims listed on this Schedule Bim the box labeled "Total” onthe lst sheet ofthe completed schedule. Repeat this oa also on the Summary of Schedules. [WH check this box it debtor has no creditors holding unsecured priority claims to report on this Schedule E ‘TYPES OF PRIORITY CLAIMS (Coeck he sproprte box(es blow fits in factory ar ston he atached shee) (C1. Extensions o ereait in an involuntary case ‘Claims arising in the ordinary course ofthe debtors busines or financial firs after the commencement ofthe case but before the earlier of the appointment of a trustee ofthe order for relief 11 US.C.§S07(a)2). (C1 Wares, sataries, and commissions Wages, sles, and commission, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay owing fo employes and commissions owing fo aqusyng dependent sie representatives upto $4 630° per person earned within 9 days immediately preceding the ling ofthe orignal petition, he cestion of busines, whichever osvared fis tothe exeat provided in 11 USC. §507(8}3). [Contributions o employee benefit plans ‘Money owed to employee benefit plans fr services rendered wihin 180 days immediately preceding the filing of te original petition, oF the cessation of busines, whichever occured fis, othe extent provided in 11 US.C. §S0T(a)8). (Do Certain farmers and fishermen ‘Claims of certain farmers and fishermen, upto $4650* per farmer or fisherman, against the debtor as provided in 11 US.C. § S0%(AXS). Deposis by incividuals Claims of individuals upto $2,100" for deposits forthe purchase, ese, or rental of propery or services for personal family, er household re that were not delivered o provided. 11 US.C. 0716) (B Atimony, Matatenance, or Support Claims of spouse, former spouse, o child ofthe debtor fr alimony, maintenance, or suppor, othe extent provided in 11 US.C.§ 50718}. 1 Taxes and Certain Other Debts Owed to Governmental Units “Taxes, customs dates, and penalties ovring to federal, state, and local governmental units as set forth in 11 USC. §SO7(AN8)- Commitments to Maintain the Capital ofan Insured Depository Institution Claims based on commitments to the FDIC, RTC, Director of he Office of Tift Supervision, Comptroller ofthe Currency, or Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System, or their predecestrs or sucessrs, to manain the capital ofan insured depository insitition. 11 USC.§ 5070099). * Amounts are subject o adjustment on Api, 2006, and every thre years hereafter with respect o cases commenced on o afte the dat of sejusment . 0. continuation sheets atachedem B28) ~ Inve Debeor without pry agnins the debtor or the property ofthe debtor as of the date offing oF John A Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond Case No. LA 03-42637-EC ikaw SCHEDULE F- CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS Siate the nave, mailing address, including zipcode, and ast four digits of ny account number, of all extites holding unsere claims petition. The complete account number of any account he debtor has withthe eeitor is useful othe tuste and the creditor and may be provided ifthe debtor chooses todo $0. Do not ncude claims sted in Schedules D and E. Ifa creditors will ot iton this page, se the continuation show provice. any nny of ‘on the appropriate schedule of creditor, and complete Schedule H- Codebtrs. If than spouse in a Joint case may be jointly liable on a claim, place an “Xin the column labeled “Codebtor,” include the nt petition isle, state whether husband, wife, both of nem, othe manta community maybe ible on each claim by placing an “H," “W."".” or “C™n the column labeled “Husband, Wife, Joint, or ‘mem tthe cli is comtingent, place an “X" m the Uniquiated "i ‘nee columas ) im is dsputed, place an "X" inthe column labeled "Disputed column labeled “Contingent Ifthe claim is unliquidated, pace an "X" inthe column labeled (You may need t place sn "X" in more than one ofthese Report total of al claims listed on this schedule inthe bor Ibeled “Tota” on the ast sheet ofthe completed schedule. Report this total also ‘on the Summary of Schedules. Ci creek this box i debror has no creditors holding unsecure claims to ceport on this Schedule F. ‘CREDITOR’ NAME, MAILING ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE, AND ACCOUNT NUMBER (Seeinructons shove) ConENTOR DATE CLAIM WAS INCURRED AND ‘CONSIDERATION FOR CLAIM. IFCLAIMIS SUBJECT TO SETOFR, ‘SOSTATE. TUNLIQUIDATED DISPUTED. CONTING AMOUNT OF claim NCCOUNTNO. 412 174 137 974 408d] Capital One Services 3.0. Box 85015 Richmond, VA 23285-5015 (Consideration: Credit Gard Debt (Unsecured) 319.00 [RCCOUNTNO, 5424 1803 0195 8718 Shi Cards [Customer Service Center J 411 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cis, NJ. 7632 Incurred: Revolving ‘Consideration: Credit Card Debt (Unsecured) 2,824.03 RECOUNTING, 5424 1804 1298 4055] Siibank P.O. Box 8500 J Sioux Falls, SD 87117 Tncurred: Revolving Consideration: Credit Card Debt (Unsecured) 41,000.00 ieee [sccouNTNo. 6011 0006 7014 9396] Discover Classic Card P.O. Box 18316 J Wilmington, DE 19850-5316 Tncurred: Revowwng Consideration: Creait Card Debt (Unsecured) ‘Total > 3,922.00 7,565.03, (Report total also on Summary of Schedules) 12,bes peters Cie ae John A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond tare - (A03-42637-66 Case No. hisown) SCHEDULE F- CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS Continuation Sheet) a iu CREDITORS NAME 3135 patectamwasivcunsenaso | EISTa] —— asounr BAe sSioenariosroncuans | 5] =| or nciupmczweooe, || Fg], CONSIDERATION HAE Ze AND ACCOUNT NUMBER 3) 22 “— vi a 5 boa fe) a2 5 TESTO REDOOOOI Consideration Atorney Fees ennely & Grosse LLP 17389 Sunset va, Ste 420 zaa7s74 Pace Paisaces. CA 90272 ACCOUNT NO. 2777497 Consideration: Equipment Rental TF ‘Hertz Equipment Rental Corp 20 Box 26980 J 14,032.79 kianoma City, OK 73120-0360 ‘SCOURTNO. 749 61237 S07 67S Treured Revowne ee Consideration: Credit Card Debt }PO Box 15027 J Unger: 1,400.37, lwvimington, DE 19850-5027 ToT Fach Polster Apar & berger UP 10900 Santa Monica Bd. th saaia.7s Foor Toe Angeles, CA 90026-6917 TEDOINTNO. 60010672TSS Thaured: Revowne on Consideration: Credit Card Debt a (Unsecured) P.O. Box 182592 J 290221 Columbus, OF 43218-2532 Si ca eee eer manana ama shoal>|s C-editors Holding Uns ‘Nonpriority Claims. (Total of this page)} soueae Tae bs (Canyon as met coment Sn) (Repetto on Summary of Sees)~ - John A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond 1A03-42637-£C ae Case No. Dabo Wiser) SCHEDULE F- CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS (Continuation Sheet) A a i a Sree. ale! DATE CLAIM WAS INCURRED AND. alEla AMOUNT Staring appease 3 a/E]2 Gostoenariovtoncuane, |} ou INCLUDING ZIP CODE, 5 a Zale Seer, |] eM RA, [IE] olla Coiedonsem) — [Clg AS\e z epee SCORN Sopher Mountain Cand & Livestock Co, Lic Notice Only io Gavi Sake Chatels £25 Zero Way Sak Park CA91377 SORTS Tnaured: 0.1500 Suipher Nourtan Wi of Attachment Cane & Livestock Co, LLC ‘ 74 610.9 1.0. 25070 Ventura, CA 93002 ACCOUNTNO 63-5733 886-2 Tncurred: Revolving vals Fargo eee Cos Dk Business Direct Division 4 P.O. Box 7487 Boise, !D 83707 5,937.18 ACCOUNTNO: RECOUNT NO. relate ‘Sheeton 2 of 2 contusion ecu wached to Schedule of Ceo ‘Suboal>|S 00,547.37 Creditor Holding Unsere Norpriony Came Tora SOL | Toul> |S 143,636.26 (Ger oly on at page of te comple SeheuieP) (Repert tia sto on Summary of Schl)4Jonn A, Reamond & Maureen C. Redmond ‘acs aceere SCHEDULE G - EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES Descrive all executory contracts of any nature and all unexpired leases of real or personal property. Include any timeshare interests, Siate nature of debtor's interest in contract, ie., "Purchaser," “Agent.” etc. State whether debtor Is the lessor or lessee of a lease Provide the names and complete mailing addresses of all other parties to each lease or contract described, NOTE: A party listed on this schedule will not receive notice of the fling of this case unless the pany is also scheduled in the appropriate schedule of creditors. [Check tnis box if debtor has no executory contracts or unexpired leases, DDESCRETION OF CONTRACT OR LEASE AND NATURE CF NAME AO WANG ADDRESS, INCLUDING 2 CODE DesTOns TEREST STATE WHETMERLEASE S FOR 1 OER Panties TOLEASE OR CONTRACT NONAESIDENTIAL AEA PROPERTY STATE CONTRACT ‘NUMBER OF ANY GOVERMENT CONTRACT Adby z Jonn A. Recmond & Maureen C. Redmond anne __tA03-42637-EC SCHEDULE H - CODEBTORS. Provide the information requested concerning any person or entity, other than a spouse in a joint case, that is also ligble on any debts listed by debtor in the schedules of creditors. Include all guarantors and co-signers. In community property states, a married debtor not filing a joint case should report the name and address of the nondebtor spouse fon this schedule, Include all names used by the nondebtor spouse during the six years immediately preceding the ‘commencement of this case, C1 Check this box if debtor has no codebtors. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CODEBTOR NAME AND ADDRESS OF CREDITOR Geraldine Redmond Sulpher Mountain Land & Livestock Co., LLC P.O. Box 25070 Ventura, CA 93302 ALJohn A. Redmond & Maureen C. Redmond 1A 03-42637-EC = isa eal Sanat at cate No, Devon aw) SCHEDULE I - CURRENT INCOME OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S) ‘The column labeled “Spouse” must be completed in all cases filed by joint debrors and by a mrried debtor in a chapter 12 o 13 case whether or not a joint petition is Hd, unless the spouses are separated and 3 joint peition isnot files Debtor's Mail [DEPENDENTS OF DEBTOR AND SPOUSE Sans RELATIONSHIP hers. » e e e e ° e ® e Knap, @ rerersen ‘CLARKE 2005 22:43 © CCNAN#LAWSFIRM 793941430 p.4 lsought are unreasonable and excessive and the attorneys’ fees and costs sought are hmreasonable, unsubstantiated, duplicative and/or unwarranted and unnecessary. Moreover, the court granted plaintiff the right to conduct discovery on the reasonableness and necessity of the attomeys’ fees. Defendants’ counsel have thwarted [plaintiff's attempts to conduct discovery by refusing to answer questions at their |Sepositions and refusing to produce documents pursuant to duly served subpoenas. Defendants’ counsel's conduct is unjustified, unwarranted and unsupportable. Plaintiff seeks a brief continuance of the hearing date of defendants’ motion for reasonable Jattorneys’ fees so that he may resolve the outstanding discovery disputes and obtain the lnecessary information to meaningfully oppose defendants’ motion for reasonable attorneys” Hees. ee eet ore Gare This opposition is further based on the provisions of the California Code of Civil |Procedure, California Rules of Court, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, jall exhibits attached hereto, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence that may Ibe presented at the time of the hearing of said motion. i IDATED: September /8, 2001 KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE By: Ey ANASTASIA M. BAUMEISTER Attomeys for Plaintiif STEPHEN M. GAGGERO 2 @ “i0sss70000miti0K AMBpOAups —_PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:49 © P-VANSLAWSFIRM, >-93941430 Pp. IABEH OE AUTHORITIES 244i), .te ss... ghee es sta . ® @ ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS [(ORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION ... DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS UNTIMELY oe MOTION SHOULD BE CONTINUED AS ‘Ss ISED TO ALLOW ‘FTO ANTS HAVE REFUS PLAINTIF! CONDUC DISCOVERY AND OBTAIN THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO MEANINGFULLY OPPOSE THE MOTION .......... 4 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS UNAUTHORIZED .......-----2- 2202000005 6 GOLDOWITZ IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY FEES AS HE OWNS THE JUDGMENT! DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY ATTEMPT TO RECOVER FEES THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THIS ACTION .........2.cccccceccceeeercncees 8 SUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT IS INCLINED TO 2SRRtDE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION, THE ADDITIONAL. ATTO) 'S’ FEES AND COSTS SOUGHT BY DEFENDANTS ARE UNREASONABLE ........---2 000s bese ene ececceneeeeneneenes denen 9 I GONCLUSION ar0y 7. - Yee enes so. Ss beet eagacucavec dae MRR tae ae 13 i © <2084sno000%pIA104_AMBpEM.epd © PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:50 CONANSLAUSFIRM 3193941430 Pp. 1 ‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2|CAsEs Page 3 |Barjon v. pales ‘9th Cir. 199° "ae 32 F.3d 4: ae " 4 jell v. Vista Unified re District (2000) S| &3Cal-App.4th 6: 6 [Bhan v. Seater (1984) 465 US. ve Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) af as eeapath 9 et Mo" 4 9 [Gates v, Patee! ian (9th Cir. 1993) fc 977 F.2d 1392 " eal 15 [Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 112 atte Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing, Co. eg 7 19 Cal.App.4th 1379 18 Hae ered 1997 Cal.App.4t in Se8 \State v. Me 985; 20] 174 CRAG 38 ost 21 JSiokus » Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647 Prope v. Kaze (1995) 25 [California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 26 \California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) . 27 28 Pil! ii @ <054s70Ns:AIOH AMBpINO.wed © PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:50 — CMWANSLAWSFIRM 2103841430 P-7 (Contin MISCELLANEOUS ~ Page (California Rules of Court, Rule 870.2 .............. wae Se a Dig ec teh in ran iS: e e e eee Re eee beet RB POS be SS ohoS Gon es ii @ (%7MeOMA AION AMBRIMM.wps PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:50 © CAYANSLAWSFIRM 703941430 p-8 ower, @ ‘-93941430 p.10 As 8 Si ang oe oa hy 10 M1 2 13 14 is 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 ware, PETERSEN Ey e e their depositions. The unanswered questions go to issues which may ultimately be dispositive of the issues raised in the moving papers. Despite this fact, Stein and IGoldowitz persisted in refusing to answer a whole host of questions. By way of example, [Stein and Goldowitz refused to allow plaintiff to examine the identity or identities of the individuals who own the judgments at issue in this action. Stein and Goldowitz further refused to produce any evidence which would demonstrate who owns the judgments in this laction. A true and correct copy of the portions of Stein’s deposition containing the questions Stein refused to answer is attached hereto as exhibit A. At this time, plaintiff has ot yet received the transcript of Goldowitz’s testimony. Goldowitz was equally lobstructive during his deposition and refused to answer numerous similar questions. Defendants have also obstructed plaintiff's ability to verify the attomeys’ fees sought in the moving papers. In support of their motion, defendants have attached an linvoice from the Law Office of Mark Goldowitz in Oakland, Califomia. The invoice lincludes billing entries by Stein as if Stein is employed by Goldowitz. The fact is, however, that Stein is not employed by Goldowitz but rather, by a separate firm, Gelfand & [Stein in Los Angeles, California. To date, Stein has failed and refused to produce his bilting records. Plaintiff has made initial efforts to meet and confer, both at the depositions of [Stein and Goldowitz and thereafter, Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts are continuing. As of this date, however, the discovery dispute has not been resolved and defendants have [persisted in refusing to allow plaintiff to obtain the necessary testimony and evidence. Defendants’ counse! have thwarted plaintiff's attempts to conduct discovery by itefusing to answer questions at their depositions and refusing to produce documents [pursuant to the duly served subpoenas. Defendants’ counsel’s conduct is unjustified, [unwarranted and unsupportable, Accordingly, plaintiff seeks a brief continuance of the hearing date of ldefendants’ motion for reasonable attomeys’ fees so that he may resolve the outstanding IGiscovery disputes and obtain the necessary information to meaningfully oppose 5 ‘Os4sTcn0ospthN08_AMBpIMMwpd PLT ‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:51 — C™ANSLAWSFIRM 9*99941430 petl Jdefendants’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees. IV. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS UNAUTHORIZED Defendants’ motion improperly seeks to recover fees and costs that Stein and |Goldowitz purportedly incurred in attempting to collect judgments that were entered more than six years ago in Apri] 1995, and more than three years ago in March 1998. The joriginal judgments were for attorneys’ fees incurred in preparing motions to strike pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, fees incurred on the appeal of the court’s ruling lon the motion to strike and fees incurred to enforce the right to mandatory fees under section 425.16. Defendants now seek to also recover the fees they allegedly incurred in their a ee ee attempts to collect the judgments. There is no authority whatsoever which would somehow |support defendants’ position. No legislative or case authority holds thet a party has a right to recover fees that such party hes incurred to collect on a judgment. Furthermore, there is 10 Support, much less authorizstion for defendants’ contention that the collection fees incurred in attempts to enforce a judgment are part of that judgment and are recoverable. In fact, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) limits the recovery lof attorneys’ fees and costs to those fees and costs that were incurred to prepare the motion to strike. This limitation was recognized in Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle iblishing, Co. (1995) 39 Cal-App.4th 1379, In Lafayette Morehouse, the court of appeal |determined that in enacting California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (c), the [Legislature clearly intended that a prevailing defendant on a motion to strike be allowed to Irecover attorneys’ fees and costs only on the motion to strike, not the entire suit. Accordingly, the Lafayette Morehouse court held that the trial court erred when it awarded ithe defendant its fees and costs for the entire suit. In reaching its decision, the Lafayette Morehouse court reviewed the legislative Inistory of section 425.16(c) and stated in relevant part as follows: Ml 6 ‘nOsesnoooompANGe_AMBpMM wpe PLTF 'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:51 — PQWANSLAWSFIRM, 7103941430 p12 A report prepared by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary leaves no doubt about the Legislature's intent. It states, "SB 1264 would provide attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing defendant ina motion to strike. .. . The provisions applies only to the motion to strike, and not to the entire action.” A Senate floor report contains Sues language. It states, "This bill provides that a lawsuit against « defendant for that person's acts in furtherance of constitutional free speech or petition Tights in connection with a public issue is subject to a motion to strike, unless the plaintiff shows the court that the lawsuit has a substantial probability of success, The bill also provides that a prevailing defendant in the motion to strike is entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees for that motion.” @a., at p.1383,) In Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 777, 1¢ court recognized that section 425.16(c) more than adequately compensates a defendant /for the expense of responding to a baseless lawsuit. In that case, the court found that an Ole A Loyy end BS laward of $27,000 in attorney fees was more than generous to compensate the defendant. In the present case, the court previously awarded defendants $116,735.43 in fees and costs. efendants now seek to recover an additionel $63,580.48, for a total fee award that would foe more than six times greater than the fees awarded in Dove Audio. Similarly, in Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 669, the court limited ithe attomey fee award to those fees incurred to prepare the Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. [The court found that the trial court’s fee award was reasonable because the trial court had. reviewed the itemized billings, had excluded fees incurred prior to the motion to strike and id limited the award to only those fees incurred for the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Here, defendants now seek to recover the fees they purportedly incurred in lattempting to collect on the two judgments. Defendants are not seeking to recover the fees 'y incurred to recover fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Those |fees were awarded by the court more than six and three years ago. Defendants contend that [Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, somehow supports their position. Defendants’ reliance on Ketchum is misplaced. The Ketchum court did not authorize any award of fees se e e poe ps SE: a a as es PMS een Oates eee a 25 ia party incurs in attempting to collect on a judgment. Rather, the Ketchum court merely lacknowledged that a party has a right to recover the fees incurred in enforcing the right to Imandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. These fees have already ovare, @ tere 77 sSee 23 1 s054s7OODOMFIAIOHAMBpIMMwpc © PLIF‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESRug 25 2005 22:51 — CMWANSLAWSFIRM. 3103841430 p13 [been awarded to defendants. The additional fees sought by defendants in their moving papers are not lauthorized by any authority, are clearly prohibited by section 425.16(c) and must not be lawarded to defendants. v. GOLDOWTITZ IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY FEES AS HE OWNS THE JUDGMENTS Despite Goldowitz and Stein’s refusal to answer deposition questions regarding the ownership of the judgments, Goldowitz has admitted that he owns defendants VNBC, | JMilligan and Schlein’s judgments against plaintiff. A true and correct copy of the | [Declaration of Mark Goldowitz is attached hereto as exhibit B. It is well settled that an attorney representing himself is not entitled to recover a fee. Kay v. Ehrler (1991) 499 U.S. 432; Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, Since |Goldowit is attempting to collect on his own account and not on behalf of a client, his fees land costs must be disallowed in their entirety. The only invoice that has been submitted to ithe court is the Goldowitz invoice totaling $63,580.43. To date, defendants have refused to [produce any other invoice for the fees and costs claimed in the moving papers. Accordingly, the entire $63,580.43 should be disallowed. VL. DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY ATTEMPT TO RECOVER FEES THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THIS ACTION In support of their motion, defendants have attached an invoice from the Law [Office of Mark Goldowitz in Oakland, California. The invoice from the Law Office of Mark Goldowitz, contains numerous billing entries for work completely unrelated to this laction. Specifically, Goldwitz's invoice contains entries regarding deposition subpoenas lserved on Goldowitz and Stein in a separate and unrelated action involving entirely \Sifferent facts and defendants, entitled Gaggero v. Yura, Los Angeles Superior Court Case uurr, @ °ETERSEN a “CLARKE 9g @ 7earelaiot susoaMewps PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:51 — CONANBLAUSFIRM 393941430 P- 1 [No. BC-239810 The invoice also includes entries regarding the preperation of motions for 2 [protective orders and motions to quash served by Goldowitz and Stein in Gaggero v. Yura. Defendants seek to recover a total of $15,070.25 for fees and costs Goldowitz 4 |[and Stein allegedly incurred in responding to and opposing deposition subpoenas that were 5 [served in the Gaggero v. Yura action. A breakdown of all such entries billed by Goldowitz 6 Jand Stein is attached hereto as exhibit C. These fees and costs are completely unrelated to 7 |[this ection and are not recoverable. vu. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT IS INCLINED TO CONSIDER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION, THE ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS SOUGHT BY DEFENDANTS ARE UNREASONABLE ‘The burden is always on the party secking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs ito submit evidence which clearly supports the claim, including accurate and coherent time jrecords and invoices. Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 437; Gates v. Deukmejian (9* Cir. 1993) 977 £2d 1392. When fees and costs are challenged, the burden shifts to the claiming party to justify them. Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal-App.3d 67, 682. If the fee claim appears on its face to be unjustified or unreasonable and is properly challenged by the fee opponent, the burden shifts back to the fee claiming to establish its propriety. State lv. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1075. As more fully set forth below, defendants Paave not met their burden. i It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable Jattorneys’ fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Courts typically consider the following factors in determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees: the nature of the tigation, the difficulty of the litigation, the amount involved, the skill required and Jemployed in handling the case, the attention given, the success of the attomey’s efforts. the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training land ability in trying the case, and the time consumed. (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 28 |Cal.App.3d 647, 657.) 9 105437 2000%pia101_AtBptvad.wpe PLT '‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:52 Co!" NSLAWSFIRM 3793841430 p15 As stated in Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 656-657: The matter of reasonableness of attorney’s fees is within the sound discretion of the trial Judge: Determining the weight and credibility of the evidence, especially credibility of witnesses, is the special province of the trier of fact. In determining what constitutes a resonable compensation for an attomey who has tendered services in connection with a legal proceeding, the court may and should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attomey’s efforts, his learning, his age, and his experience in the particular type of the work demanded the intricacies and the jortance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. Defendants’ declarations that purportedly support their request for reasonable attorneys’ fees, clearly illustrate that the request is neither reasonable, justifiable nor lsubstantiated and warranted. As more fully set forth above, the Goldowitz invoice contains yumerous entries for work that was not even performed for these defendants, much less in this action. There are also numerous attorney billing issues, including but not limited to: the absence of billing records; unacceptable “block billing;” unsubstantiated excessive hhourly rates; the inclusion of fees which defendants are not entitled to recover; lunrecoverable costs; and, vague and ambiguous time entries which prevent a determination lof their reasonableness and necessity. Goldowitz seeks an hourly rate of $420 per hour for his efforts to collect the judgments. In his declaration, Goldowitz attempts to support this hourly rate by contending {that he is an anti-SLAPP specialist and as such, he is entitled to recover this rate. The fact is, however, that the fees presented on Goldowitz invoice have nothing to do with any anti- SLAPP issues. Rather, the fees are limited to Goldowitz’s efforts to collect the judgments. [There is no complexity or recognized specialty for collection work. Goldowitz is merely lattempting to recover his alleged anti-SLAPP suit hourly rate for his collection efforts. The fhourly rate sought is excessive and unreasonable. Stein seeks an hourly rate of $325 per hour for his efforts to collect the judgments. Stein is not a specialist and does not claim any specialty in his declaration. The jourly rate sought for Stein's collection efforts is excessive and unreasonable. Furthermore, defendants have failed to sustain their burden regarding the 10 @ \es+sron0mpcU08_AMBpIM vps __PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:52 — CoONSLAWEFIRM nape, ETERSEN CLARKE 1941430 P16 | Prevailing market rates” in Los Angeles for similar collection work. The 1996 Survey of |-aw Firm Economics conducted by Altman Weil Pensa, Inc. reveals that the average standard hourly billing rates in California for parmers were $210 per hour. The average standard hourly billing rates in California for associates were $146 per hour. This well [respected survey was conducted four years ago. A true and correct copy of the relevant [portions of the 1996 Survey of Law Firm Economies conducted by Altman Weil Pensa, Inc. fis attached hereto as exhibit D. The 2001 Survey of Law Firm Economics conducted by Altman Weil Pensa, Hine, reveals that the median standard hourly billing rate for partners at firms with less than Inine lawyers is $180 per hour. The median standard hourly billing rate for lawyers admitted to the bar from 1980 through 1984 is approximately $220 per hour. A true and Jcorrect copy of the relevant portions of the 2001 Survey of Law Firm Economics conducted by Altman Weil Pensa, Inc. is attached hereto as exhibit E. In Barjon v. Dalton (9* Cir. 1997) 132 F. 3d 496, the court explained that the 3 60 les Wes utay cen ee ily rate to use is the prevailing rate in the forum city. Having defined Sacramento as the relevant community, the next inquiry becomes the reasonable hourly rate in the Sacramento area. ‘The established standard is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. ; +; an atiorney’s prior fee award is not sufficient without other evidence showing that the requested rates are prevailing in the community. While an attomey’s prior fee award may bear on the selection of a reasonable fee in a later case . . . simply offering the rior award is not enough. Id. at p.502. In Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 895, the court stated that the burden is jon the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence, in addition to the attomey's own affidavits, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for isimilar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation. Here, Goldowitz and Stein have failed to provide any evidence of the rates ul "Gs437000%pi808_AMBpIMMwet © PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:53 9 C~~-NBLAWSFIRM 2193841430 p-17 apr, °STERSEN ® s CLARKE |charged in Los Angeles by collection attorneys. Instead, Goldowitz seeks to recover the jhourly rate he purportedly received for his anti-SLAPP work. Stein merely claims that he n lyears of experience, by partners in small law firms and by California partners in 1996. Defendants have failed to meet their burden regarding the necessity of the fees they seek. Defendants are seeking fees they incurred to prepare a motion to appoint a receiver , to claim lien rights on various judgments, to research issues of priority of lien leimants on judgment liens, to instruct the sheriff and marshal's office to levy writs of 0368 ceive ta opie lexecution, and to conduct a debtor's examination of plaintiff. These fees were clearly not incurred for the purposes set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Furthermore, the necessity of these fees is questionable. For example, defendants billed time to appoint la receiver when there was nothing for a receiver to receive. Defendants also billed time to. claim lien rights on $1.5 million in judgments when defendants’ judgments total $116,735.16. Defendants have also failed to meet their burden regarding the reasonableness lof the fees they seek. Defendants have billed a total of 23.80 hours or $9,236 in interoffice conferencing. A breakdown of all such entries is attached hereto as exhibit F. Defendants are also seeking to recover fees for secretarial and administrative lactivities. Such activities are not properly billed to a client as they are overhead costs. efendants have billed a total of 9.35 hours or $3,148 in secretarial and administrative lactivities. A breakdown of all such entries is attached hereto as exhibit G. The Goldowitz invoice is replete with block-billed entries that are unacceptable land unreasonable. In Bell v. Vista Unified School District (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, the court found that the trial court should exercise its discretion in either assigning a reasonable jercentage to such block- billed entries, or simply case them aside. Defendants also seck to recover inappropriate costs. Defendants have requested je further $2,422.48 in costs for items such as parking, telephone charges, federal express 12 *OS4S70000%I8108 AMBpiMM.wpd _-PLIF ‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS’ MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:53 ch -NBLAWSFIRM knape, PETERSEN S CLARKE (©0457. 000078108 AME RIN wpe 3193841430 p.18 Icharges, messengers, postage, court reporter charges, recording fees and issuance fees. [Such items are not recoverable. Furthermore, defendants have refused to produce any documentation which would support these charges. An itemization of the costs appearing lon Goldowitz’s invoice is attached hereto as exhibit H. ‘As more fully set forth above, the fees and costs sought by defendants are junsubstantiated, excessive and unreasonable, Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to lany additional fee awards. vin. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully request that the court continue the jearing date of defendants’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees so thet plaintiff may lobtain the necessary information to meaningfully oppose the motion. In the alternative, [plaintiff respectfully requests that defendants’ motion be denied in its entirety. DATED: September /¥, 2001 KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE ANASTASIA M. BAUMEISTER Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHEN M. GAGGERO 13 PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:53 9 P= NBLAWSFIRM 7193941430 p-19 aarp, SETERSEN CLARKE TION. Ni ANASTASIA M. BAUMEISTER declares: 1, Tam an attomey licensed to practice law in the State of California and a lmember of the firm of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, attomeys for plaintiff, Stephen M. JGeggero. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On July 16, 2001, the court granted plaintiff the right to conduct discovery on ihe reasonableness and necessity of the attorneys’ fees sought by defendants. As a result fo ithe court's ruling, plaintiff served attorneys Craig Stein and Mark Goldowitz with Jéeposition subpoenas for personal appearance and for production of documents. 3. The subpoenas were limited to the production of each attorney's billing statements, invoices, proformas, attomey time sheets, pleadings, correspondence, receipts Jand any other documents supporting the attorneys’ fees and costs sought in defendants! Imotion. Stein and Goldowitz refused to produce any documents sought by the duly served |subpoenas. 4, Both Stein and Goldowitz refused to answer numerous questions at their ldepositions, A true and correct copy of the portions of Stein's deposition containing the |questions Stein refused to answer is attached hereto as exhibit A. At this time, plaintiff has Inot yet received the deposition transcript of Goldowitz's testimony. 5. Plaintiff has made initial efforts to meet and confer, both at the depositions of [Stein and Goldowitz and thereafter. As of this date, however, the discovery dispute has not woe 7. A breakdown of all entries billed by Goldowitz and Stein in a separate and jenrelated action entitled Gaggero v. Yura, Los Angeles Superior Court case number 14 ‘SosssroqomGiatOHAMBpIMM. wpe PLIF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESAug 25 2005 22:53 P~V"N#LAWSFIRM, 999941430 Pe nape, @ crersen CLARKE 20 1 }BC239810, is attached hereto as exhibit C. 8. A trie and.correct of the relevant portions of The 1996 Survey of Law Firm 3 Economics conducted by Altman Weil Pensa, Inc., is attached hereto as exhibit D. 9. A tmue and correct copy of the relevant portions of the 2001 Survey of Law 10. A breakdown of all entries regarding inter-office conferencing by Goldowitz 7 [and Stein is attached hereto as exhibit F. 11. A breakdown of all entries regarding secretarial and administrative activities 9 fis attached hereto as exhibit G. 12. _ Anitemization of the costs appearing on Goldowitz's invoice is attached as exhibit H. I'declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 10 n 2 13 [foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 18, 2001, at Glendale, California. | ANASTASIA M. BAUMEISTER 15 @ 05S 70000%ALOSAMBpiMM wed _PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTY'S FEESar ~\03941430 row oMaLAURF IRM Aug 25 2005 22:53 bsueq [Foy WeUny Rey joo, Suumyg pur quawaseuEW y Ne NV Ye We 3y. somwouoay WIR] MvT Jo ADAING O66] OU,22 --93941430 Pr ovoNeLAWSF IRM Aug 25 2008 22:54 ELOGI Vd “REVNDS NAOLMAN “ONI ‘SNOLLVOITHNA VSNGd “EM NVIALTY '9661 0 LHORIAGOO ae i061 Ya ia sme 00 eR tbr emp ce tal eo LRRD Pees wrerand ng ‘mend mad Hen Jo end et td Aapeonal emp snipe nad spy on ps tiny Bly aang ea APA NY portal oa mare ox pent dE ey poein ee a Sm an rent On era ed mm at a rgd ome eanTon Pep et orrseeviy oorrrisecis SOrEF Ua eHpry "emmy HA, 900¢ two ay sna eet. oot Pang eG E96 01 enna Pog aba taserssesie vorercrsor 0086 Vin See 1061 V4 ss enemy 1199 19 vot, ensign Noort rang mda on sey open oF ‘eta nme o1f ‘comms 0066-6s€ (019) £LO61 Ve “ssenbs umoymony i 007 ng ‘pavagjnog sndwec) om, “ONT 'SNOLLVOITaNd VSNad TAA NYY Aq paysygng NOISSa40Ud IVD UHL OL SLNV.LINSNOD “ONT ‘VSNGld ‘IM NVILLTY ‘Aq poronpuoy, Ww Fson WONODd WU MYT AO ATAUNS* 9661 THLAug 25 2005 22:54 = o>" YBLAWSFIRM. p.23 >*93841430 ABOUT ALTMAN WEIL PENSA and ALIMAN WEIL PENSA PUBLICATIONS, ING. Alunan Wel Fensa, Inc, provides management consulting services exclusively to legal organizations, Founded in 1970, che firm is headquartered a suburban Philadelphia and has offices in Connecticut, Wisconsin, California and Washington. ‘The fmm also has offices in Metboume, Australia, and 2 London-based affiliation with Hodgart Temporal. Akman Well Pensa consulting services for lzw firms and corporate law departments include strate- ‘sic planning, process reengineering, benchmarking, ‘organizational development, profitability analysis and Planning, micro-economic forecasting, marketing Planning, compensation systems, law firm mergers and acquisitions, atorney and staff training, human Fesource management, quality management pro- ‘grams, financial management, cent surveys and ‘automation technology. Akman Well Pensa is the only consulting firm specializing in legal organizations to be named Fepeatedty to the Consultants’ News list of top 100 ‘maragement consulting firms. Its principals have held directorships in major national and intemnation- al consulting organizations, including the Institute of Management Consultants and the Association of Management Consultants, in addition, Altman Weil Fensa's consultants, have held bosrd and comminee Positions in the American Bar Assaciation, Assocission of Legal Administrators, National Law Firm Marketing Association, National Association of Legal Vendors and more, Altman Weil Pensa, Ine. consultants are authors ‘of major treatises in the field of law practice management, including How to Manage Your Law Office, introduction to Law Practice Management, and Lew Office Automation and Technology, pub- Ushed by Matthew Bender & Co. Ar the invitation of the American Ber Association, its consultants have ‘Written various monographs including the recent Compensation Plans for Law Firms, 20d, nd Billing Innovations. Tts consulants have written ‘]tensively for major legal and business publications, and have been quoted in publications including The Wall Street Journal, Tima, US News & World Report, The Economist, Fortune, Toe New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philedelpbia Ingurer aad USA Today. Alcman Well Pensa is a major source of econom ic information about the legal profession. [es tnnual Survey of Law Firm Economics is widely recog. nized as the premaicr beachmacking survey on Ew Survey and the Law Expenditures Survey, Conducted jointly with the American Corporate Counsel Association, provide a foundation for Altman ‘Well Pensa’s information-based corporate consultan- igs, The firm frequently conduc confidential sur- veys for clients, bar associations, and others for gen eral publication through its affiliate Altman Weil ‘Pensa Publications, Inc. The firma also publishes 2 growing ary of man- agement handbooks and newsletters. Its leading monthly newslerter, Report to Legal Management, hhas recently beea joined by Law Office Review and BonamLine Management for Law Firms. Tbe Altman Wel Pensa Archive Series, five books collecting the best writing of the firm's con- sultants, contains vohumes on human resources, strategic planning, economics and financial planaing, client development znd marketing, and 5 ‘Among the firm's other recent publications are The Complete Personnel Administration Handbook for Law Firins Job Descriptions for Law Firms and Comorate Law Departments, and Tbe Blograpbical Directory of Legat Administration Professionals. Altman Weil Pensa’s clients include law firms and corporate law departments of all sizes and arcas of practice throughout North America ind abroad. Atunaa Weil Pensi coasultants have been asked to ‘Write, speak and provide consulting services in Latin Ainerica, the U.K, Continental Europe, Africa and Australia, Altman Weil Pensa Publications’ surveys, newslemers and books enjoy a similar international ‘audience. Bi) Altman Weil Pensa PublicationsAug 25 2005 22:54 crt IBLAUSFIRM 3103941430 FOREWORD of the remarkable fornight of several individuals who, Through their wong willy and waflegeing energies, clared the way for 8 new jeciutrecopution for sn ocrupational puri which bas come to be known ion. This Gre biopapbical directory of the men and women och lawyet. From thelr vantage points at conral ofa new profession, Dovdng hat profaion vision aon omens or a ee founding of Aleman t Well Informa convertion led to dhe small fist a bel in dhe New York offices of Reavis & McGrath, Elected President ae rreiord W, Hildebrandt with Madge Stone and Marvin Winter tapped t0 he drat execodwe group a8 View President and Treasurer, respectively. Incorporation documents were prepared and the Anoditon of ‘Admininmtors wis born. ‘Brad's fist acto President was to remain Altman & Wel as edvisons and sdmisiy Ens to the new orgunizition. Our founders fanded the inital printing and Thulling forthe new organization and, for sever) yeas therexfer, wrote the aanice, conducted the fast seary survey, kept the membership record, col Hated she nonval dues and, generally, handled the day-to-day affice of the ‘Much has transpired in the quarter century since our common beginsings We at Altman Wel Penaa acknowledge our debt wo our forebears ~ end our inexorable ink to the Assocation of Lepal Administrators of toe furore, Charles F. Haxsaw Publisher ‘Aimnan Weil Peasa, Inc, ‘ . 242s 3193841430 cow" NBLAWSFIRM Aug 25 2008 22:54 enna ien inna diasenaiannintiaaaeasinnnes arepeiyensianetiemmeermert=remen | eouosra uname ns st ri 2 wopron rung He MAUEULY ! tpenwyauos) i . so 59 ss sy us er sz sebaterea t1W i st seu vor 06 60 967 6z ore ' soz sor ost ser 9st usp oe s29ptouezeus/exourz0d Te33499 359K on 09 ss os 9s vet ee syebaterea TTY] ost vet ort 86 ot uz te soqeyoorsy orz sor ost set sor ver ve sreptouereus/ezeurzed Texque9 yanes| so se so ss 9 eez ze sct set oz oor zt eee 9e sez 00z out ost eit 90¥ 9c 66 $8 on so Sk 98 ot syebotered TTY ser our ser ore ser Sst soqeyaorey| ove ove o0z Sut ore ect & szeproueseys/ez9u3z04 ruz037189) ¢ ‘ ‘ ‘ettoeq | aT y37"Nd} e eT Fate] ¢ jsuoy3 {soa | #997370 wae aeddn uvtpen | zoH0r | e6ureay [30 zequnn| zo Joquon| enqeqg/uoybou . 9661 ‘Tt Axenuep jo sw % NorDay xa wernt serTry EMINOH auvaNvES e e e e e e e eAug 25 2005 22:54 © cou~N#LAUaFIRM 31938941430 p.26 * Altman Weil, Ine.-The Su. | of Law Firm Economics - Standard _y BillingRates Page | of 3 Eisurvay of Law Fim Eeenemies ~ Law Depanmant Compensation Benchmarking Survey | ~ Survey of Law Deparment: | formance Males | COMPStore i store.altranweil ‘Sign up now ts racaive me ‘Aman Wel vet Mewasezar Broo a eee se bap: www altmanweil.com/products's pe THE 2001 SURVEY OF LAW FIRM ECONOMICS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRO + PART A « FINANCIALS » STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES - (BILLABLE) HOURS WORKED ~ CASH AND TOTAL COMPENSATION ” PERE STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES. ‘This section prasenis standard biling rates for equity parmers and share equity partners, associates and paralegals. The associate and stafl post combined in all abies, except where indicated. Information ig collected & and paralegal on the “individual's most commonly used hourly rate as of 200%". Law firs frequenty employ this rate, usually called the Stancarc Dudgeting practices. Years of experience is calculated in tis secton fot ‘scmitte to bar. Average billng rates, as well as quarties and ninth deci reported as folows: MEDIAN STANDARD HOURLY SILLING RATE: BY FIRM SIZE tor Partners and Associates 3 = Under d Lawyers 24 te <0 Lawyers 7310480 Lam te 20 Lawyers 4110 7S Lawyers Over 1 Firm Size fe/standard.cfinAug 25 2008 22:55) C™'"N@LAUSFIRM 3193941430 p.27 Auman Weil, Inc.- Ihe Su claw Fur Economics - Standard —_'y Billing Rates Page 2of3 MEDIAN STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RAI BY YEAR ADMITTED TO BAR All Lawyers ‘Year Admitted to Bar NATIONAL INDIVIDUAL STATUS CODE: STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES As of January 4, 2001 INTRO. BART A . FIVANCIALS - STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATES - 5 (BILLABLE) HOURS WORKED + CASH AND TOTAL COMPENSATION " PERE ‘bnp://wwww altmanweil.com/products/surveys/si‘e/standard.cfinExhibit 21Sep 02 2005 11:13 CYANBLAUSFIRN 393941430 P. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEVEN M. GAGGERO, B091522 consolidated with ‘Nos. B094657 and BQ96606 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. BC109521) ¥ ‘COURT OF APPEAL - SECOND DIST. STEVEN SCHLEIN et al., FIle Dp OcT 61997 Defendants and Respondents, ‘pects cin ree hy deus cla APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John Zebrowski, Judge. Affirmed. Sherman L. Stacey for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mark Goldowitz; Doniger & Fetter, Thomas Doniger and Henry D. Fetter; Cox, Castle & Nicholson and Keaneth B. Bley for Defendants and Respondents. 0001Sep 02 2005 11:13 “ANSLAUSFIRM >-93941430 P-3 e e |. INTRODUCTION ‘Stephen M. Gaggero, plaintiff, appeals from a judgment of dismissal. The judgment Was entered after the tral court granted a motion to strike Mr. Gaggero’s first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP statute”).1 The dismissal was in favor of: Steven Schlein; John Stein; Tuck Mulligan; Venice North Beach Coalition (VNBC); Barry A. Fisher; and the law firm of Fleishman, Fisher and ‘Moest (defendants). Mr. Gaggero also appeals from orders granting attorney’s fees to defendants? We affirm the judgment of dismissal and the orders awarding attomey’s fees to the defendants. I BACKGROUND ‘This was an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process by Mr. Gaggero against multiple defendants: VNBC; Mr. Schlein; Mr. Stein; Mr. Mulligan; and the law firm of Fleishman, Fisher & Moest and Barry A. Fisher, VNBC's attorneys. In the } All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure except where otherwise noted. 2 _ Plaintiff filed three separate appeals which we have consolidated. In case ‘No, B091522, plaintiff challenges the judgment of dismissal. In case Nos. B094657 and 096606, plaintiff challenges the atomey’s fee awards in favor of the defendants, 2 002Sep 02 2005 11:18 sANSLAWSFIRM 3793941430 Pe underlying action, VNBC challenged plaintiff's proposed commercial development of property on the boardwalk at Venice Beach. A. The Underlying Action VNBC filed the underlying case as a private attomey general action. It was brought against the City of Los Angeles (city). ‘That suit named plaintiff here, Mr. Gaggero, as the real party in interest. VNBC sought in its role as the petitioner in the underlying lawsuit: a writ of mandate; declaratory relief; and injunctive relief. VNBC, in the prior lawsuit, alleged that the city had improperly approved a development project under the Permit ‘Streamlining Act (PSA) and pursuant to a settlement of Mr. Gaggero's complaint against the city, without complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The underlying lawsuit sought to stop construction of Mr. Gaggero’s project. Tt was commenced on August 22, 1990. A first amended complaint was filed on August 27, 1991, On December 18, 1991, the trial court denied VNBC’s request for a preliminary injunction. VNBC appealed and sought a writ of supersedeas from Division Three of the Second Appellate District. The notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 1991. On March 11, 1992, Division Three of this appellate district issued a writ of supersedeas barring the proposed construction pending appeal. (Venice North Beach Coalition v. City ofLos Angeles (Mar. 11, 1992) 063707 {nonpub. order).) The supersedeas order of Division Three stated: “Having reviewed the petition for writ of supersedeas and the 0003Sep 02 2005 11:14 — -oWANSLAUSFIRM 7103941430 Pp Fesponsive briefs thereto, we conclude that petitioner has satisfied the burden of showing the existence of substantial questions of law and that the appeal is not taken merely for delay. We therefore exercise our discretion in favor of maintaining the status quo to reserve the fruits of appeal. Having notified the parties of the possibility that the writ Would issue, we grant the petition for writ of supersedeas.” On February 28, 1992, prior to the issuance of the first supersedeas order, the trial court denied VNBC’s mandate petition, NBC appealed, and sought a second writ of supersedeas, The second notice of appeal was filed on March 10, 1992. On May 19, 1992, Division Three of this appellate district issued a second writ of supersedeas, finding VNBC had “satisfied the burden of showing the existence of substantial questions of law and that the appeal is not taken merely for delay.” (Venice North Beack Coalition v. City of Los Angeles (May 19, 1992) B065324 {nonpub. order}.) The Court of Appeal ordered VNBC to post a bond and our Division Three colleagues remanded the matter to the trial judge for determination of the bond ‘amount. The trial court set the bond at $200,000 and ordered that it be posted by July 6, 1992. The bond was never posted. Defendants presented evidence, in connection with their section 425.16 motion in the present case, that VNBC could not afford to post the bond. VNBC’s nwo appeals (case Nos. 065324 and B063707) were consolidated. (Venice North Beach Coalition v. City of Los Angeles, supra, BO65324 [nonpub. order}.) On April 29, 1993, Division Three issued its opinion affirming the refusal to issue a weit of mandate, (Venice North Beach Coalition v. City of Los Angeles (Apt. 29, 1993) B063707, 0004o2 2005 1 14 PAUANSLAWSFIRM 3103841430 P. 'B065324 [nonpub. opn.].) The Court of Appeal declined to address various arguments Presented by VNBC, to wit: “(1) the PSA requires that notice be given of the possibility that a permit application might be ‘deemed approved’ and no such notice was given, (2) until there is compliance with CEQA a permit application may not be ‘deemed approved,’ (3) mandatory issuance of a permit under the PSA does not excuse compliance with CEQA, (4) there was no compliance with CEQA and (5) VNBC was improperly denied an opportunity for an internal appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision that issuance of the permit was compelled by the PSA.” (Venice North Beach Coalition v. City ofLos Angeles, supra, typed opn. at p. 13.) The Court of Appeal instead found: “(1) VNBC did have a full and fair opportunity to oppose the proposed development and (2) the requirements of CEQA were in fact satisfied.” (/d., typed opn. p. 14.) A petition for review was filed in the Supreme Court on June 8, 1993. The petition was denied on July 21, 1993. The remittitur was issued on August 11, 1993. 8. The Present Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Action Mr. Gaggero's first amended complaint alleged as follows. Mr. Gaggero was the ‘owner of real property on Ocean Front Walk in Venice. He attempted to use the properties for commercial purposes. Defendants embarked upon a campaign to prevent Mr. Gaggero fom making a commercial use of his property and to harm him, Defendants: spread lies and false statements about Mr. Gaggero in the community; made false statements to city 0005Sep 02 2005 11:14 — ~-WANSLAUEFIRM 2103941430 P. and state officials about Mr. Gaggero and his properties; objected and appealed decisions granting Mr. Gaggero permits; and induced third parties to breach or disavow their contracts with Mz. Gaggero. More specifically, defendants: opposed Mr. Gaggero’s application to build a commercial building on his property and submitted false and misleading statements causing the city to delay acting on the request; formed VNBC for the sole purpose of acting as a petitioner in litigation to prevent Mr. Gaggero from using his Jand for commercial purposes; instituted a civil action against Mr. Gaggero in the name of VNBC claiming the city had improperly approved his development plans; appealed the city’s decision to approve Mr. Gaggero’s project to the California Coastal Commission; ‘unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction in the civil action to enjoin Mr. Gaggero Genial of the preliminary injunction; sought a writ of mandate against the city to force it to set aside its approval of Mr. Gaggero’s project; appealed the denial of their writ of mandate; sought a second writ of supersedeas; failed and refused to post a bond for the Purpose of maintaining a writ of supersedeas issued by the Court of Appeal; filed a rehearing petition in the Court of Appeal following affirmance of the judgment; and filed a Petition for review in the Supreme Court3 * __ Although Mr. Gaggero alleged defendants spread false statements about him in the community and induced third parties to breach or disavow contracts with him, no cause of action for defamation or interference with business relations was stated. Further, no specific evidence of any such acts was submitted in opposition to defendants’ section 425.16 motion. 0006hes e @ Mr. Gaggero alleged defendants’ actions were j0ut probable cause in that: e defendants brought a court action without exhausting their administrative remedies; defendants did not challenge the final administrative decision; defendants did not honestly and reasonably believe they had not had a full and fair opportunity to oppose Mr. Gaggero's development; nor did they honestly and reasonably believe the review required by CEQA had not taken place. Defendants acted with malice and to harm and punish Mr. Gaggero because of personal grievances with him and to harm his property for their own personal benefit. Mr. Gaggero alleged abuse of process in that defendants obtained a writ of supersedeas to prevent his project from proceeding and from obtaining e financing with no intent to post the required bond. e C. The Section 425.16 Motions In support of their section 425.16 motions, defendants presented evidence they ° opposed Mr. Gaggero’s proposed commercial development out of a desire to protect “the ‘ocean-front environment of the Venice boardwalk and historic walk-street” neighborhood in which they lived. Mr. Gaggero illegally began “intensive open-air vending” on an e unimproved dirt lot. The property Mr. Gaggero proposed to develop had been zoned for residential use only. He proposed to tum the residential property into a commercial mini- Ay mall. Defendants were concerned about, among other things, noise, traffic congestion, pedestrian access to the beach, and parking availability. Further, defendants believed the 007 eSep 02 2005 11:14 JANSLAUSFIRM 03841430 city had improperly approved Mr. Gaggero’s permit applications without undertaking required and necessary environmental impact review. In opposing the motion, Mr. Gaggero presented evidence that prior to purchasing the property he had investigated the city zoning and coastal commission regulations and found nothing preventing the planned commercial uses. He later learned three of his buildings on Ocean Front Walk, while zoned for commercial use, were shown on the Venice Community Plan as residential. The city became subject to an order prohibiting Property uses inconsistent with community plans.. Mr. Gaggero’s declaration outlined the unsuccessful opposition he encountered from defendants at every step of the process for approval of his plans. He stated he had not brought this malicious prosecution action to deter defendants from exercising their constitutional rights. Rather, Mr. Gaggero stated: “The primary purpose of this litigation is to recover my actual damages for conduct which ‘was wrong.” Defendants’ motions pursuant to section 425.16 were granted. Mr. Gaggero appealed. Ml DISCUSSION A. Section 425.16 Section 425.16 was enacted in 1992. (Stats. 1992, ch. 726, No. 5 Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, pp. 3039-3040.) It authorizes courts to summarily dismiss meritless actions 008Sep 02 2005 11:14 + 7193841430 p.10 brought to deter the exercise of First Amsndment rights. The legislative purpose is set forth in section 425.16, subdivision (a) 0 the statute as follows: “The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this Participation should not be chilled throug abuse of the judicial process.” The moving defendant on a sectior. 425.16 motion has the initial burden of making a ima facie showing the underlying acts were “in furtherance” of her or his “right of petition or free speech under the United Sates or California Constitution” and were undertaken “in connection with a public issue.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b); Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 669, 673; Brawt v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1997) $2 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1042-1043; Linsco/Private Ledger, nc. v. Investors Arbitration Services, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal-App.4th 1633, 1637.) That threshold showing is met by demonstrating the act in question fits one of the categories in section 425.16, subdivision (e). (Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, 52 Cal-App.4th at rp. 1042-1043.) Section 425.16, subdivision (¢) provides: “As used in this section, ‘act in ‘urtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or Californ a Constitution in connection with a public issue’ inchides any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or licial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; any written or oral 008Sep 02 2005 11:15 — PAUANSLAWEFIRM 3103841430 p.tl statement or writing mede in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or any writen or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” However, if the moving defendant makes the requisite threshold showing, the burden shifts to the piaintiff. The plaintif?'s burden is to establish “that there is a probability that [he or she] will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b); Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal-App 4th 777, 784.) Ifthe moving defendant fails to meet his or her initial burden, the court need not even consider whether the plaintiff's showing is sufficient. (Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v.C.S.J. Telecommunications Engineers (1996) 49 Cal-App.tth 1591, 1603.) In Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 815, Justice Johnson of this appellate district's Division Seven noted: “Litigation which has come to be known as SLAPP, is defined by the sociologists who coined the term as ‘civil Jawsuits .. . that are aimed at preventing citizens from exercising their political rights or Punishing those who have done so.’ [Citation.] The paradigm SLAPP is a suit filed by a Jarge land developer against environmental activists or a neighborhood association intended to chill the defendants’ continued political or legal opposition to the developers" Plans. (Citations.] SLAPPs, however, are by no means limited to environmental issues {citation}, nor are the defendants necessarily local organizations with limited resources. [Citation." 0010 10Sep 02 2005 11:15 — P-~WANSLAWEFIRM 793941430 p12 &. Substantial Evidence Supported the Trial Court's Order Granting Defendants’ Section 425.16 Motion A tial court's decision on a section 425.16 motion is subject to review for substantial evidence. (Macias v. Hartwell, supra, $5 Cal.App.4th at p. 674.) We find substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination in this case.4 Mr. Gaggero does not contend defendants failed to meet their initial burden. Moreover, substantial evidence supported the conclusion defendants’ underlying action against Mr. Gaggero was in furtherance of their constitutional right of petition for redress of grievances and was ‘brought in connection with a public issue—commercial- development of the Venice Beach boardwalk. The constitutional right of petition includes the basic act of filing litigation or otherwise seeking administrative action. (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, supra, 47 Cal App.4th at p. 784; Ludwig v, Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 8, 19.) Further, the proposed development of a mini-mall, with possible adverse environmental impacts affecting residents, was a matter of potential public interest. (Ludwig v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 15; § 425.16, subd. (e).) * _ Mr. Stein and Mr. Fisher filed evidentiary objections directed at plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the section 425.16 motion. However, there is no indication the trial court ruled on those objections, nor any showing the defendants attempted to secure a ruling. ‘Therefore the objections have been waived. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 670, fn. 1; Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal-App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4.) a 011Sep 02 2005 11:15 = ~~YANSLAUSFIRM, -~-93941430 p13 Mr. Gaggero asserts section 425.16 does not extend to “sham judicial activities.” He argues defendants’ action against him was a sham. This “sham exception” argument ‘was not raised in the trial court. As a result, it has been waived. (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Calsth 1148, 1174; Jn re Marriage of Arceneauax (1990) $1 Cal34 1130, 1138; Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1065-1066; Estate of Leslie (1984) 37 Cal.3d 186, 202; Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180, 184-185, fn, 1; Estate of Westerman (1968) 68 Cal.2d 267, 278-279.) Even if the issue were properly before us and assuming that the sham_exception applies in this context (see Ludwig v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal-App.4th at p. 22; Wileox v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 822), we would not find the underlying action was of such a nature as. 4 matter of law. Section 425.16 is based on the constitutional doctrine that those who petition the government are generally immune from liability for those actions. (Ludwig v. ‘Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal-App.sth at p. 22; see Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. V. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (1993) 508 U.S. 49, 56.) The “sham exception” to this doctrine applies when the challenged action was: undertaken with an improper motive; done solely to harass and hinder and not in hopes of securing a favorable governmental result; and objectively baseless. (Ludwig v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at P.22.) As discussed below, Mr. Gaggero failed to establish he would probably prevail on the merits of his malicious prosecution and abuse of process causes of action. For the same reasons, Mr. Gaggero has not shown the underlying VNBC action was a sham. on12Sep 02 2005 11:15 *"WANSLAWSFIRM >*93841430 P. 14 Ina related argument, Mr. Gaggero asserts his malicious prosecution action falls outside the scope of section 425.16 because: it was not brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of defendants’ constitutional rights; it will not chill defendants’ participation in matters of public significance; and because there are no present or future acts of defendants which Mr. Gaggero is seeking to curb. (See § 425.16, subd. (a).) Mr. Gaggero stresses that defendants opposed his development for more than eight years yet he never took eny action against them. We find substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination this action fell within section 425.16. First, as noted above, defendants made a prima facie furtherance of their right to petition government for redress of grievances and in connection with a public issue. Second, as discussed below, Mr. Gaggero failed to establish there was a probability he would prevail on the merits, Mr. Gaggero does not contend malicious prosecution actions are excepted, as a matter of law, from the scope of section 425.16. Further, section 425.16 addresses both efforts to “chill” the exercise of the Constitutional rights of free speech and petition, and attempts to punish the exercise of those constitutional freedoms. (Macias v. Hartwell, supra, $5 Cal.App.4th at p. 672; Wilcox v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 816.) The trial court could reasonably conclude this lawsuit was aiined at punishing defendants. ‘Substantial evidence also supported the trial court's finding Mr. Gaggeto failed to establish a probability he would prevail on the merits. (§ 425.16, subd. (b).) A successful B 0013Sep 02 2005 11:15 ~~ NAN#LAUSFIRM 93941430 P- 4s malicious prosecution claim requires proof of four elements: the action was (1) commenced by or at the direction of the defendant; (2) terminated in the plaintiff's favor; (3) brought without probable cause; and (4) initiated with malice, (Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 676; Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 871; Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 50.) Our focus is on the third element--probable cause. The question whether there was probable cause is one of law based on the facts known to the defendants when they filed the prior action. ‘The Supreme Court has held: “[TJhe question whether there was probable cause to institute the prior action is purely a legal question, to be determined by the trial court on the basis of whether, as an objective matter, the prior action was legally tenable or not.” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 868.) Whether probable cause exists depends on “the ‘reasonableness’ of the defendant's conduct, i. whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the institution of the prior action was legally tenable.” (/d. at p. 878.) The Court of Appeal has defined “Probable cause” as follows: “Probable cause has classically been defined as ‘a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a reasonable person in the belief that the charge is true.’ [Citations.] ‘Probable cause does not depend on the actual state of the case, but rather on whether the one instigating the proceeding is possessed of knowledge, information, or facts sufficient to cause a reasonable, or a reasonably prudent, person to telieve honestly that the charge is true.’ [Citation.]" (Nicholson v. Lucas (1994) 21 0016 14Sep 02 2005 11:16 — °"WANSLAWSFIRM 7109941430 p.16 Cal.App.4th 1657, 1665.) The objective standard to be applied in determining whether the action could be pursued without incurring tort liability is “whether any reasonable attomey would have thought the claim tenable...” (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 886-887; Lubetzky v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 308, 316.) Whether an action was legally tenable depends on the facts known to the defendant when the prior action was initiated. (Sheldon Appei Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 886; Bizler v. Goulding (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1 188.) Further, if the court finds there ‘was probable cause to initiate the action, the malicious prosecution action fails~regardless of whether there is evidence the prior action was maliciously motivated. (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 868, 875, 878, 883; Del Rio v. Jetton (1997) $5 Cal.App.4th 30, 38.) ‘There was substantial evidence defendants filed the underlying action against the city in an effort to prevent further commercialization of Venice Beach property absent the requisite environmental review. At the time the underlying action was filed, in August 1980, the Venice Beach area was “one of the most severely over impacted areas in Los Angeles ....” There was considerable community opposition to further commercialization of the Venice Beach boardwalk. Residents favored “a slow-down of commercialization, Particularly on the boardwalk.” Mr. Schlein’s declaration stated: “My belief that IMz. Gaggero’s] discretionary commercial projects should not be approved was based on the criteria for such projects set out in the zoning code, on the fact, officially recognized, 0015 15Sep 02 2005 11:16 ~-YAN#LAUSFIRM 93941430 p.17 thet the ocean front area of Venice was overimpacted with commercial uses to such an extent that public safety was in jeopardy, and on the obvious adverse impacts this development was having on the entire community. This view was, and is shared by thousands of residents in the area.” Ms. Schlein further stated: “The only gain I stood to achieve by objecting to the mall was to spare my neighborhood from a wholly inappropriate and harmful commercial use.” Defendants’ lawsuit raised significant questions involving the CEQA and the PSA. There were issues as to whether defendants had been denied proper notice plaintiff's permits might be deemed approved (due to the permitting authority's inaction) under the PSA. There were issues as to whether a project could be deemed approved under the PSA absent compliance with CEQA. The Attorney General's office agreed with defendants’ position that the PSA could not supersede the CEQA. In an October 1990 letter to the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals, Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp expressed the opinion a development project could not be deemed approved under the PSA absent CEQA compliance. Further, while VNBC’s action was pending against Mr. Gaggero, and partially in response to the issues raised therein, legislation was introduced and ultimately enacted to clarify the PSA so projects could not be deemed approved without CEQA compliance. (See 1993 amendments to Gov. Code, § 65950; Stats. 1993, ch, 1068, No. 7 Deering's Adv. Legis. Service, p. $479.) This was sufficient evidence VNBC and its attorneys had probable cause to initiate the action against Mr. Gaggero. 0016ep 02 2005 11:16 = P>WANSLAUBFIRN >+93941430 Pe Mr. Gaggero relies on the decision on appeal in the underlying action in support of 18 his contention VNBC’s action was without probable cause. He points in particular to the following language in our Division Three colleague's opinion in the underlying litigation: “Ia our view, [Mr. Gaggero's] argument that VNBC seeks only to delay this project for as Jong as possible has considerable merit. It truly appears to be an inspired effort to elevate form over substance.” (Venice North Beach Coalition v. City of Los Angeles, supra, typed opn. at p. 24.) However, prior to issuing its decision on appeal, the Court of Appeal had ‘twice issued writs of supersedeas finding substantial questions of law existed. Furthermore, our Division Three colleague's views at the time of the appeal has no conclusive bearing on the question whether VNBC had probable cause to initiate the underlying action. Whether defendants had probable cause to bring the underlying action was not a question which was before our Division Three colleagues at that time. Further, the Court of Appeal recognized that the language of the PSA was ambiguous with respect to the need for prior notice a “deemed approval” may occur, (/d., typed opn. at p. 15.) The ‘court concluded, however, that even assuming such notice was required, there was no Prejudice to VNBC. (/d,, typed opn. at p. 16.) With respect to the CEQA compliance by the city, the Court of Appeal found “the Coastal Commission’s review and approval Process was the functional and legal equivalent” of an EIR prepared by the city, (id., typed Opn. at p. 20) thereby curing “whatever procedural errors and defects there may have been in the city’s handling of the original permit application.” (Jd., typed opn. at p. 24.) In 7 0017Sep 02 2005 11:16 © P~YANSLAWSFIRM 293841430 p19 short, the Court of Appeal never reached VNBC’s central claims. The Court of Appeal never determined whether VNBC was entitled to notice of a possible “deemed approval” under the PSA. Further, the Court of Appeal did not discuss the contention posited by VNNBC that a “deemed approval” under the PSA could not occur absent compliance with the CEQA. That the court found it unnecessary to reach those issues does not establish NBC had no probable cause to initiate the underlying action. Moreover, no published Court of Appeal decision has reached the same legal conclusion concerning the CEQA. Mr. Gaggero argues any reasonable attorney would have recognized the underlying action was premature when filed because VNBC had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; specifically, VNBC had not sought review of the Coastal Commission decision. ‘However, the trial court in the underlying action overruled demurrers on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Furthermore, there was substantial evidence VNBC reasonably concluded its failure to seek review of the Coastal Commission's actions was irrelevant insofar as it was challenging actions taken by the lead agency, the city. Further, there was substantial evidence the gist of the claim was that the city’s deemed approval of Mr. Gaggero’s permits, without notice to VNBC, coupled with the settlement of his lawsuit against the city, allowed him to obtain approval for his development project without first complying with the CEQA. ‘Mr. Gaggero also failed to establish he would probably prevail on his abuse of Process claim. To establish abuse of process there must be “[sJome definite act or threat 18 0018Sep 02 2005 11:16 — P-YAN#LAUSFIRM 2503941430 p.20 hot authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the Process . . . ; and there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” (Silver v. Gold (1989) 211 Cal.App.3¢ 17, 24, internal quotations marks omitted; Clark Equipment Co. v. Wheat (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 503, 524.) Mr. Gaggero made no showing VNBC sought a writ of supersedeas for any illegitimate purpose. The uncontradicied evidence was that VNBC secured a writ of supersedeas to maintain the status quo pending appeal. That was a proper use of the process. Because we conclude Mr. Gaggero failed to show he would probably prevail on the merits, we need not consider the assertion the malicious ‘Prosecution and abuse of process causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. We also do not consider defendants’ argument that, extending City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 535, areal party in interest named as a defendant in an action against a governmental entity cannot subsequently bring a malicious prosecution action. Section 425.16 does not Violate Mr. Gaggero’s Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial ‘The contention section 425.16 violates Mr. Gaggero’s constitutional right to a jury trial has been rejected by the Courss of Appeal. (La/ayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 866-867; Dixon v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 733, 746; Wilcox v. Superior Cort, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 825; 4a oo18p 02 2005 11:17 P-WANSLAWEFIRN 7193941430 p-21 cf. College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 714-721 [section 425.13, requiring a showing of “substantial probability” of prevailing on a punitive damages claim, does not implicate any jury trial concerns].) Further, on the facts of this case, the question of probable cause was one of law. (Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 881; Copenbarger v. International Ins. Co. (1996) 46 Cal-App.4th 961, 964.) ‘Mr. Gaggero does not contend there was any dispute as to the facts known to VNBC when the underlying action was commenced. Therefore, the probable cause question would have been determined by the court.in a summary judgment proceeding or at trial. D. Attorney's Fees 1, Inthe trial court Upon defendants’ motions, the trial court awarded attomey’s fees pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (¢),8 as follows: to Mr. Fisher, and the law firm of Fleishman, Fisher and Moest, $41,733.75; to Mr. Stein, $22,000; and to VNBC, Mr. Schlein, and Mr. Mulligan, $40,000. Mr. Gaggero appealed from the attomey’s fee orders. We review the orders according to the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (Dove Audio, Inc. v. Section 425.16, subdivision (c) provides: “In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attomey’s fees and costs...” 20 0020Sep 02 2005 11:17 * ‘ANSLAWSFIRM 93941430 p.22 Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 785; Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 659.) We find no abuse of discretion. Inhis brief on appeal, Mr. Gaggero rehashes, nearly verbatim, arguments raised in the trial court briefs opposing defendants’ attomey’s fee requests. Mr. Gaggero makes no attempt to explain in what manner the trial court abused its discretion. It is not our place to redecide the motions, Also, Mr. Gaggero argues fees should have been limited to those incurred in connection with the section 425.16 motion only. The Courts of Appeal have held atorney's fees recoverable under section 425.16 are limited to those incurred on the anti-SLAPP motion, rather than in the entire action. (Macias v. Hartwell, supra, 55 Cal.App.sth at p, 676; Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1382-1384.) We have reviewed the legislative history of section 425.16. We agree with Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pages 1382-1384, which found the Legislature intended a prevailing defendant on a section 425.16 motion be allowed to recover attorney's fees incurred on the motion only. However, Mr. Gaggero has made no showing, as a matter of record, that the trial court awarded fees for work other than on the section 425.16 motion itself.6 The record does not clearly reveal whether the court awarded costs and fees for the entire case Plaintiff argues only: “In this case, there were countless hours billed by all three sets of attorneys which were either unconnected or unnecessary to the bringing of the SLAFP motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure [section] 425.16, The attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to those hours should not be allowed ....” 21 9021Sep 02 2005 11:17” “{ANSLAUSFIRM 93941430 p.23 and not just on the motion to strike. Absent a clear demonstration the trial court erred, we will presume it properly limited the award. (Compare Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.) Mr. Gaggero contends: (1) the aggregate fees awarded, exceeding $100,000 and representing over 350 hours of work, are “grossly unreasonable” because the defendants’ attomeys worked “extensively together,” and Mr. Schiein’s attomey, Mark Goldowitz, is “a self-proclaimed and apperently recognized SLAPP litigation/motion to strike expert”; (2) the fees claimed by Mr. Goldowitz were unreasonable; and (3) there is no explanation for awarding Mr. Stein's lawyer $22,000, while awarding counsel for Mr. Fisher and Fleishman, Fisher and Moest $41,733.75, and the attorney for Mr. Schlein, Mr. Mulligan, and VNBC $40,000; the $22,000 award should “set the benchmark” for what was reasonable. Mr. Gaggero specifically objects (without citation to the record) to Mr. Goldowitz's bill for: over 60 telephone calls.with Mr. Schlein; an “excessive number of conferences” with a colleague; and “an exorbitant amount of time for conferring with co-counsel and reviewing co-counsel’s drafts of documents to be filed ....”" The question of the reasonableness of the fees awarded was within the sound discretion of the trial court. In Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, supra, 42 CalApp.4th at page 659, the Court of ‘Appeal held: “In determining what constitutes a reasonable compensation for an attomey who has rendered services in connection with a legal proceeding, the court may and should- consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required 0022Sep 02 2005 11:17 © C4ANSLAUSFIRN 3193941430 p.24 and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attomey’s efforts, his learning, his age, and his experience in the particular type of work demanded . ..; the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legel training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. [Citations.]" (Original italics, internal quotation marks omitted.) We find substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the fee award. (Macias v. Hartwell, supra, 55 Cal-App.4th at p. 676; Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, supra, 42 Cal-App.4th at p. 659.) Mr. Gaggero has not established the awards were based on unnecessary or duplicative work. (Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, $2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052.) Mr. Gaggero has not shown an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we affirm the orders. 2. Onappeal Defendants request recovery of their attorney's fees and costs on appeal. Those fees ‘and costs are recoverable under section 425.16 subdivision (c). (Dove Audio, Ine. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, supra, 47 CalApp.4th at p. 785; Church of Scientology V. Wollersheim, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at pp. 659-660.) On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of defendants’ costs and attorney's fees on appeal. 0023 23Sep 02 2005 11:17 P~JANSLAWRFIRM 9193941430 e @ IV. DISPOSITION ‘The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. The orders awarding defendants their attorney's fees are affirmed. Defendants, Steven Schein, John Stein, Tuck Mulligan, Venice North Beach Coalition, Barry A. Fisher, and Fleishman, Fisher and Moest, are to recover their cosis and attomney’s fees on appeal from plaintiff, Stephen M. Gaggero. On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of defendants’ attomey’s fees and costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS TURNER, PJ, We concur: ARMSTRONG, J. GODOY PEREZ, J. 24 0024ease PROOF OF SERVICE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ate of California, Iam over the age of 18 am employed in the County of Los Angeles. s is 10390 Santa Monica Boulevard, Fourth and not a party to the within action; my business addi Floor, Los Angeles, California 90025-6917. ‘On September 6, 2005, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES on the interested parties in this action by delivering a true copy thereof via ‘overnight courier to the offices of: David Blake Chatfield Attorneys for Plaintiff WESTLAKE LAW GROUP. Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co. 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, California 91361 Peter J. Bezek FOLEY & BEZEK 15 West Carillo Street ‘Santa Barbara, California 93101 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to Federal Express for delivery to the above addressees. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on September 6, 2005, at Los Angeles, California. ‘Catherine Mammana Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys’ FeesDo bh bw oe 4 26 27 28 soza96 Michael C. Baum (SBN 65158) VENTURA Andrew V. Jablon (SBN 199083) SUPERIOR COURT RESCH POLSTER ALPERT & BERGER LLP FILED 10390 Santa Monica Boulevard, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, California 90025-6917 SEP - 6 2005 Telephone: ' 310/277-8300 Facsimile: 310/552-3209 oe MICHAEL D. PLANET Attomeys for Defendants Executive Officer anid Clark John Redmond, Maureen Redmond, BY:——BISAOPEZ— O° Geraldine Redmond and Somerset Farms, LLC SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND Case No. CIV 214702 LIVESTOCK CO., LLC, Honorable Steven E. Hintz/Department 42 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: October 4, 2002 vs. JOHN REDMOND; MAUREEN REDMOND;| DECLARATION OF ANDREW Y. JABLON IN GERALDINE REDMOND; SOMERSET OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FARMS LLC, etc., et al. ATTORNEYS’ FEES Defendants. September 19, 2005 8:30 a.m. Dept: 42 Declaration of Andrew V. Jablon in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ FeesDECLARATION OF ANDREW Y. JABLON I, ANDREW V. JABLON, declare: we 3 1. Tam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and an associate at 4 |]the law firm of Resch Polster Alpert & Berger LLP, counsel for Defendants in the above-entitled 5 |[action. Ihave personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, either as a direct participant in the 6 |] matters described, or in my capacity as one of the attorneys principally responsible for the handling of this case on behalf of Resch Polster Alpert & Berger LLP. As to those matters, my knowledge is § || based upon a review of the files maintained by Resch Polster Alpert & Berger LLP in its regular 9 |Jcourse of business. I am familiar with the manner in which those files are created and maintained. 10 ||If called and swom as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set forth 11 || herein. 2 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a summary chart which I prepared, breaking down 13 || Plaintiff's requested fees for each irregularity and impropriety set forth in Plaintiff's Motion for 14 |] Attomeys’ Fees (the “Motion”). These figures were gamered from the spreadsheets identified 15 |] below, each of which was prepared in the manner set forth in paragraph 3 below. 16 3. Attached hereto as Exhibits “B” through “M” are spreadsheets which I prepared after 17 |Jhaving reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and the entirety of Plaintiff's claimed invoices submitted in 18 ||suppor of the Motion. This process was accomplished by first having the invoices scanned into our 19 |/office computer system, and onto a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. I then had another associate and 20 || secretary in our offices each review the scanned-in spreadsheet for accuracy, and make any 21 |} necessary corrections of any scanning errors. 1 also reviewed the spreadsheet for accuracy and made 22 |[any necessary corrections of scanning errors. Once I had the master spreadsheet of Plaintiff's 23 || claimed invoices, 1 was then able to prepare additional spreadsheets for each of the issues raised in 24 the Defendants’ Opposition Memorandum. I specifically reviewed each entry to identify whether 25 || any portion of the work entry was improperly allocated, For example, if an entry had work which 26 |] as performed with respect to the Redmond Bankruptcy proceedings, I copied that entry into the 27 |/Bankruptcy attorneys’ fee schedule which is labeled Exhibit “E", 1 also reviewed each entry to 28 || identify irregularities (e.g., padding of time, duplication of work), improprietis (e.g. attempting to Declaration of Andrew V. Jablon in Opposition 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees1 ||cottect on fees for vendetta tasks (c.g., trying to get Geraldine Redmond fired from her job)). and || made separate spreadsheets in the same manner, 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set Rowen forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to the ‘Attachment Proceedings at the Trial Court level. 5, Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to the still pending Appellate Proceedings, which were commenced by the Plaintiff, with respect to the ‘Court’s Order Attachment Proceedings at the Trial Court level. Seair.d3su 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 11 ||forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to 12 ||Redmond v. Gaggero, wherein Geraldine Redmond secured a Temporary Restraining Order 13 ||¢-TRO”) against Stephen M. Gaggero. 14 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 15 ||forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to 16 ||both Geraldine Redmond and John and Maureen Redmond’s Bankruptcy proceedings. 7 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 18 || forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover that were incurred 19 ||by Stephen Gaggero’s personal attorney (see, infra, paragraph 20). 20 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover for tasks that 22 || appear to be fictional (e.g., Attorney A reports a meeting with Attorney B that does not appear on 23. | Attomey B's time sheets). 24 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 25 || forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to 26 ||tasks taken solely for the purpose of satisfying its principals personal vendetta against the 27 ||Defendants. By way of example, Plaintiff is seeking to recover for its attempts to get Geraldine 28 || Redmond fired from her job ~ as shown by the letter sent from Mr. Chatfield to Ms. Redmond’s 2) Declaration of Andrew V.Jablon in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys" Fees1 |]employer, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 11, Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 3 |]forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect 10 4 || tasks that were, on their face, unnecessary and designed solely to drive up the cost of litigation 5 12, Attached hereto as Exhibit “K” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 6 || forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover with respect to its 7 || bad faith participation in mandatory settlement conferences, 8 13, Attached hereto as Exhibit “L” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner sct 9 |}forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover which were 10 || purportedly incurred after Defendants’ $100,000 Statutory Offer of Compromise dated December 3, 11 |]2003. 12 14, Attached hereto as Exhibit “M” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set 13 }} forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff incurred prior to January 13, 2003 14 |! less the irregularities and improprieties set forth above. 15 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit “N” is a true and correct copy of our Notice of Deposition 16 |] which we served on Plaintiff's counsel. In response, Plaintiff ‘objected to the Notice of Deposition in 17 }/its entirety, and refused to either appear or produce documents. Attached hereto as Exhibit “O" is a 18 |[true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Objection. As set forth therein, Mr. Chatfield objected to the 19 || deposition notice on, inter alia, the grounds that he would have to be subpoenaed as a non-party. 20 16. Plaintiff repeatedly refused to comply with its discovery obligations by interposing 21 [/meritless objections to document requests and interrogatories. Attached hereto as Exhibits “P” and 24 17. In July, 2003, 1 took the deposition of Stephen M. Gaggero. During the course of the 25 |] deposition, Mr. Gaggero, both independently and at the instruction of his counsel, refused to answer | Declaration of Andrew: V. Jablon in Opposition 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Atomey' FeesCer AaunaAwn 10 ul 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit “R” are true and correct copies of the relevant pages of the transcript of Stephen Gaggero’s deposition, in which the Court reporter notes that the first day of deposition began at 11:35 am. and concluded at 5:36 p.m. The deposition began late because Plaintiff's counsel and the witness arrived late. 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit “S” are true and correct copies of the relevant pages of the ‘transcript of Stephen Gaggero’s deposition, in which the Court reporter notes that the second day of deposition began at 9:13 a.m. and concluded at 1:54 p.m. 20. Peter Bezek attended Mr. Gaggero's deposition and stated, on the record, that he was appearing as personal counsel for Mr. Gaggero. Attached hereto as Exhibit “T” is a true and correct |copy of the relevant portions of Mr. Gaggero's deposition in which the foregoing is set forth. 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit “U” is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ November 13, 2003 CCP § 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise, in the amount of $45,000, including costs and attomeys’ fees. Plaintiff never responded to this offer. 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit “V" is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ December 3, 2003 CCP § 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise, in the amount of $100,000, including costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff's counsel, David Chatfield, orally advised me that his client was rejecting the offer. 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit “W” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's December 3, 2003 CCP § 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise, in the amount of $25,000, but silent on costs and ‘attorneys’ fees. When our office received Plaintiff's offer, I contacted Mr. Chatfield and asked him if he could estimate his client's fees and costs, which was necessary for our client to evaluate the settlement offer. Mr. Chatfield refused to provide the information. Accordingly, our client's permitted the offer to expire. 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit “X” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's May 27, 2005 CCP § 998 Statutory Offer of Compromise, in the amount of $25,000, but silent as to costs and attorneys’ fees. Prior to our client's accepting the offer, I contacted Mr. Chatfield and asked him to Provide me with an estimate of his clients’ fees and costs. Mr. Chatfield stated that he estimated his client had incurred between $200,000 and $300,000 in fees and costs 4 Declaration of Andrew V. Jablon in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Atiorneys’ Fees26 a 28 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Y” is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of the deposition transcript of Stephen Gaggero, wherein he testifies that Plaintiff does not have any employees. 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Z” is a list of actions that were pending in California Courts between October 2, 2002 and the present in which David B. Chatfield represented one or more of the litigants litigants. 27. Prior to the first scheduled trial date, David Chatfield introduced me to Pamela Voich, who was attending a hearing with him. Mr. Chatfield advised me that Ms. Voich would also be attending the trial as co-counsel in this matter. 28. Attached hereto as Exhibit “AA” is a spreadsheet which I prepared, in the manner set forth in Paragraph 3, showing the amount of fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover that reflect gross inefficiencies. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed September 6, 2005, at Los Angeles, California. ‘V.JABLON Declaration of Andrew V. Jablon in Opposition 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ FeesExhibit AExhibit “A” ‘Category Claimed Fees" Fees for which there is no evidentiary support SIT0A4T ST Fees for Bankruptcy proceedings in which Plaintiff $135,307.30 ‘was either the losing party or no prevailing party can be found, as a matter of law. Fees for the separate TRO proceedings in Redmond v- $30,075.00 Gaggero. Fees for Gaggero’s personal atfomeys’ Tees (not $10,030.00 including Redmond v. Gaggero TRO proceedings). | Fees for Plaintiff's bad faith participation in $17,009.75 mandatory settlement conferences. Fees for the unwarranted and subsequently quashed $51,075.00 writ of attachment. | Fees related to Plaintiff's still pending Appeal of the $28,000.00 Order quashing the Writ of Attachment. Fees for unnecessary tasks. $16,725.00 Fees for vendetta tasks, $14,250.00 Fees for fictional tasks. 311,569.75 Fees for gross inefficiencies $95,885.00 15% Block Billing Deduction. $92,569.00 Fees for David Chatfield's time — all of which is $405,333.35 suspect because of his history of padding his time. Fees over the $800 allowed by statute incurred in $91,768.00 espect of the common count cause of action. Fees purportedly incurred after Defendants’ first § 998 $573,829.30 Offer of January 13, 2003, in the amount of $25,209. Fees purportedly incurred after Defendants’ final § $317,092.35 998 Offer of December 3, 2003, in the amount of $100,000. ! These amount necessarily add up to more than the total amount of requested fees because the categories overlap and the difficulty is segregating fees due to Plaintiff's counsel's block billingExhibit BDate lAttorney| [Description Hours| Rate Total Charge 10/2/2002 Dac ERS! REVIEW ICANTY CONTRACT REVIEW ICORRESPONDENCE, VERIFIED REDMAN BANK ACCOUNT AT JACKSON FEDERAL, IRESEARCH AND DRAFT COMPLAINT: RESEARCH AND DRAFT APPLICATIONS |FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON. ISOMMERSET 5.50 | $300.00 $1,650.00 10/3/2002 Dec IREVIEW CORRESPONDENCE IN ISOMERSET MATTER; RESEARCH RE EX PARTE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT REQUIREMENTS; DRAFT DECLARATION OF| IMARK MARAVELAS; DRAFT DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND. |AUTHORITIES; DRAFT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; DRAFT EXPARTE IRTAO'S FOR EACH DEFENDANT; REDRAFT IDECLARATION OF MARK MARAVELAS; REVIEW ACCOUNTING AND ADJUST DOCUMENTS FOR NEW AMOUNT; 2 TIC’S WITH COREY FRIEDMAN RE ASSET ISEARCH, FAX PERSONAL INFORMATION ITO HIM FOR SEARCHES; T/C WITH INVESTIGATOR REGARDING SOMERSET |AND REDMOND REAL PROPERTY ASSETS. JAND PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH, REVIEW IDOCUMENTS FROM INVESTIGATOR 11.50 | $300.00 $3,450.00Date |Attorney| [Description Hours | Rate Total Charge 40/4/2002. DBC FINALIZE DECLARATION OF MARK MARVELAS FOR; SOMERSET; PREPARE |ADDITIONAL APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT FOR SOMERSET |AND PREPARE ADDITIONAL EXPARTE RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FOR ISOMERSET; REVISIONS TO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND |AUTHORITIES IN SOMERSET; PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR FILING IN SOMERSET; TRAVEL TO AND FILE COMPLAINT AND 4 APPLICATIONS |FOR EX PARTE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND EX PART RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FOR SOMERSET; T/C WITH INVESTIGATOR IRE SOMERSET AND REDMOND ASSETS. 475 $300.00 $1,425.00 1077/2002 Bc [TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND HEARING ON | WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON SOMERSET; MEETING WITH SHERIFF. 2.75 $300.00 $625.00 10/6/2002 MEETING WITH LORI CANTI AND STEVE IGAGGERO; TIC WITH SGT. MEYERS RE SOMERSET; MEETING WITH SGT, MEYERS RE SOMERSET, REVIEW BOARDING [AGREEMENT AND LETTERS RE DBC |SOMERSET; DECLARATION OF SMG. 2.50 $300.00 $750.00|Description Total Charge |SEVERAL TIC’S WITH GAGGERO RE ISOMERSET; RESEARCH, REVIEW TRO |AND DECLARATIONS, DISCUSS WITH |GAGGERO, PREPARE MOTION TO DISSOLVE OR MODIFY THE TRO; PREPARE| JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S EXAM FORM; PREPARE DECLARATION FOR COLLEEN JO'BRIEN; PREPARE DECLARATION FOR ILAURIE CANTY; PREPARE DECLARATION IFOR INDIVIDUAL BOARDERS; T/C WITH JAY| FRIEDMAN RE SOMERSET INVESTIGATION; T/C WITH SHERIFF RE SERVICE AND PROCEDURES FOR |ATTACHMENT; RESEARCH ON REDMOND. COURT RECORDS AND HISTORY; MEETING WITH GAGGERO, KIM CRUSER |AND LAURIE KANTI $2,625.00 MEET WITH LAURIE CANT! AND KATRINE INIELSEN AT THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INTERVIEW THEM, GO THROUGH THE IBARN AND REVIEW MISSING ITEMS, ICOLLECT INFORMATION FOR DECLARATIONS RE SOMERSET; PREPARE DECLARATIONS OF LAURIE CANT! AND TWO DECLARATIONS FOR KATRINE INIELSON; PREPARE DECLARATION OF DAVID CHATFIELD RE SERVICE; REVIEW |AND PRINT OUT PICTURES FOR EXHIBITS, PREPARE EXHIBITS, PREPARE CIVIL |COVERSHEETS COPY AND PREPARE FOR IFILING; TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND TO FILING AND LODGING OF DECLARATIONS. WITH VSC RE SOMERSET; REVIEW COURT] RECORDS ON GERALDINE REDMOND FROM LASC, VSC, AND EL PASO ISUPERIOR COURT; PREPARE DECLARATION OF KEELEY MIRCETIC RE SOMERSET $1,725.00Date lAttorney| Description Hours| Rate Total Charge 10/11/2002 pec TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND HEARING ON EX |PARTE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT; TICS WITH BONDING COMPANIES; REVIEW BONDING COMPANY |APPLICATIONS; TIC WITH COMMERCIAL JATTORNEY SERVICE; T/C WITH BONDING SERVICE CORP: TRAVEL TO AND MEET WITH COMMERCIAL ATTORNEYS SERVICE JRE SERVICE OF COMPLAINT ON JOHN IREDMOND, MAUREEN REDMOND AND ISOMERSET LLC; TRAVEL TO AND MEET WITH DEPUTY JONASON RE WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT REQUIREMENTS; PREPARE WRITS OF ATTACHMENT FOR ISSUANCE; |TRAVEL TO COURT FOR HEARING BEFORE| JUDGE WALSH FOR SIGNATURE OF RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER; TAKE BONDS TO [COURT TO FILE AND HAVE WRITS ISSUED; TAKE BOND AND WRIT TO SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO OBTAIN FINAL INFORMATION JON WRIT PROCESS; SERVE GERALDINE [REDMOND WITH COMPLAINT; BEGIN IDRAFTING OF MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE |STAY; INSTRUCTIONS TO VENTURA ICOUNTY SHERIFF RE WRIT OF TTACHMENT, 10.75 | $300.00 $3,225.00|Attorney| [Description Total Charge DBC MEETING WITH GAGGERO RE SOMERSET; JRESEARCH ABANDONMENT LAWS AND. ICOMPARE WITH LEASE TERMS. ISOMERSET; PREPARE LEVY INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMERCIAL IPROCESS SERVING, PREPARE INSTRUCTIONS TO SHERIFF, PREPARE INOTICE OF ATTACHMENT, PREPARE PAPERS FOR LEVY; TRAVEL TO AND MEET |WITH COMMERCIAL PROCESS SERVING RE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON REDMOND; REVIEW AND REVISE DECLARATION OF DENIS O'BRIEN TO BRING INTO ICONFORMANCE WITH EC 1284; REVIEW [DECLARATION OF COLLEEN O'BRIEN $1,950.00 DBC TRAVEL TO AND MEET WITH SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RE SOMERSET; TIC WITH PROCESS SERVICE REGARDING SERVICE OF THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON JOHN JAND MAUREEN REDMOND $375.00 DBC PREPARE ORDER FOR APPEARANCE FOR DEBTOR'S EXAMS ON JOHN REDMOND; PREPARE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DEBTOR'S EXAM ON JOHN REDMOND; PREPARE ORDER FOR APPEARANCE FOR DEBTOR'S EXAM ON MAUREEN REDMOND; PREPARE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DEBTOR'S EXAM; TRAVEL TO COURT TO. |ATTEMPT ISSUANCE OF ORDERS FOR |APPEARANCE AND MEET WITH COURT CLERK; MEETING WITH PROCESS ISERVICE COMPANY RE: SERVICE OF [COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED ORDERS $1,800.00 Dec RESEARCH IN CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S |ASSOCIATION CIVIL PROCEDURES. MANUAL RE WRITS AND PREJUDGMENT IREMEDIES ON SOMERSET $300.00Date lAttorney Description Hours| Rate Total Charge 10/2272002 Bc ITC WITH JACKSON FEDERAL BANK; T/C WITH VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF; T/C WITH MODOC COUNTY SHERIFF; T/C WITH COMMERCIAL PROCESS SERVICE; REVIEW ASSET LISTS AND COMPARE |WITH WRITS OF ATTACHMENT ON |REDMOND; REVIEW PROOF OF SERVICE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON MAUREEN IREDMOND ; REVIEW PROOF OF SERVICE. OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON JOHN IREDMOND; REVIEW POSTING ON JOHN, IREDMOND OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; REVIEW SERVICE OF WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT ON JACKSON FEDERAL IBANK FOR MAUREEN REDMOND; REVIEW |SERVICE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON JACKSON FEDERAL BANK FOR JOHN REDMOND; REVIEW RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT ON JOHN REDMOND; REVIEW RECORDATION OF INOTICE OF ATTACHMENT ON MAUREEN, IREDMOND ; REVIEW PROOF OF SERVICE IOF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON MAUREEN REDMOND; REVIEW PROOF OF ISERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT JON SOMERSET FARMS. 5.50 | $300.00 $1,650.00 41/6/2002 Bc REVISIONS TO SOMERSET BUSINESS |RECORDS SUBPOENA; PREPARE NOTICE TO CONSUMER OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISUBPOENA FOR GERALDINE REDMOND; PREPARE BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FOR GERALDINE REDMOND: IFINALIZE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS AND. IPRODUCTION DEMANDS FOR JOHN, MAUREEN, GERALDINE AND PMK OF ISOMERSET; T/C WITH COWAN RE HIS IREQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS, DISCUSSIONS RE WRIT; MEETING WITH ISAGGERO RE SOMERSET 2.75 | $300.00 $825.00Date lAttorney| |Description Hours | Total Charge 2/14/2003 DBC IRESEARCH ON SURETYSHIP, REVISIONS TO REDMOND DISCOVERY RESPONSES |AND PUT IN FINAL FORM; PREPARE IPROOFS OF SERVICE ON REDMOND. DISCOVERY; PREPARE VERIFICATIONS FOR MARK MARAVELAS FOR REDMOND DISCOVERY 2.50 $300.00 $750.00 4/15/2003, DBC DRAFT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT JOHN REDMOND; DRAFT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL, WRIT OF ATTACHMENT MAUREEN IREDMOND; DRAFT APPLICATION FOR JADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ISOMERSET; DRAFT APPLICATION FOR |ADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT JAY IREDMOND; RESEARCH, DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND [AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF |ADDITIONAL WRITS OF ATTACHMENT; [DRAFT NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR |ADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT JOHN IREDMOND; DRAFT NOTICE OF |APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT SOMMERSET; DRAFT INOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL| WRIT OF ATTACHMENT MAUREEN REDMOND; DRAFT NOTICE OF |APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT GERALDINE REDMOND. 7.50 $300.00 $2,250.00 4/16/2003 DBC UE TON OF JAPPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO| |ATTACH ORDERS AND ADDITIONAL WRITS JOF ATTACHMENT IN SOMERSET, DECLARATION OF DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS |AND AUTHORITIES, PREPARE PROOFS OF SERVICE 4.00 $300.00 $1,200.00Date |Attorney| [Description Hours | Rate Total Charge 4/17/2003 DBC IRESEARCH ON CODE SERVICE AND INOTICE PROVISION CONFLICT FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT, FINALIZE NOTICE AND [APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF |ATTACHMENT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS JAND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF DAVID CHATFIELD; PREPARE PROOFS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION, JAPPLICATION, MEMO OF POINTS AND |AUTHORITIES ON ALL FOUR DEFENDANTS;| CHECK SOMERSET FARMS LLC STATUS lWITH SECRETARY OF STATE 2.25 $300.00 $675.00 4/18/2003 DBC TRAVEL TO VSC REVIEW COURT FILE, JFILE APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL WRITS OF ATTACHMENT 0.75 $300.00 $225.00 5/1/2003, PREPARE OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE. |APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF [ATTACHMENT 3.75 $300.00 $1,125.00 5/2/2003 Dec TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND HEARING ON EX. PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE WOA |APPLICATIONS; DRAFT FORM INTERROGATORIES TO SOMERSET, IDRAFT FORM INTERROGATORIES TO JAY IREDMOND ; DRAFT FORM INTERROGATORIES TO MAUREEN REDMOND; DRAFT FORM INTERROGATORIES TO JOHN REDMOND; DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO |SOMERSET; DRAFT REQUEST FOR |ADMISSIONS TO JAY REDMOND; DRAFT IREQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO JOHN IREDMOND; DRAFT REQUEST FOR |ADMISSIONS TO MAUREEN REDMOND: IDRAFT DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR IMARSHA ADAMSON; PROOFS OF SERVICE JOF SOMERSET DISCOVERY 7.75 $300.00 $2,325.00 51412003, REVIEW MOVING AND OPPOSING BRIEFS, IRESEARCH ON CC SECTION 2941, Dec [PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. 2.00 $300.00 $600.00Date lAttorney| Description Hours Rate Total Charge 5/18/2003 pec REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF DEMURRER; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS |OF APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE |ATTACHMENT; RESEARCH; REVIEW IDOCUMENTS AND BEGIN FACTUAL ISUMMARY FOR OPPOSITION TO SET JASIDE ATTACHMENT; REVIEW NOTICE LETTER FROM COURT RE SOMERSET 6.25 $300.00 $1,875.00 5/26/2003 DBC REVIEW DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN IREDMOND FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT |WRIT AGAINST GUARANTORS; T/C WITH ICARLSEN RE SURETY ISSUES 2.00 $300.00 $600.00 5/29/2003 DBC REVIEW LETTER FROM ANDREW JABLON; REVISIONS TO EXPARTE APPLICATION; REVISION TO DECLARATION; T/C WITH |ANDREW JABLON RE SETTLEMENT. ICONFERENCE DATES; REVIEW AND IRESEARCH SOMMERSET ISSUES; REVIEW |AND ANALYSIS OF SOMERSET IDEMURRER; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT; RESEARCH AND PREPARE. OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER; RESEARCH |AND PREPARE OPPOSITION TO MOTION. ITO SET ASIDE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT 9.75 $300.00 $2,925.00 6/1/2003 DBC IRESEARCH PREPARE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT; PREPARE DECLARATION JAND EXHIBITS FROM DISCOVERY IN ISUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO [SET ASIDE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT 14.75 $300.00 $3,525.00Date lAttorney| Hours | Rate Total Charge 6/2/2003 DBC REVISIONS TO DEMURRER IN SOMERSET; REVISIONS TO DECLARATION IN ISOMERSET; REVISIONS TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT; PREPARE TABLE OF ICONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE FOR IDEMURRER, DECLARATION AND OPPOSITION; PREPARE NOTICE OF IRULING AND PROOF OF SERVICE; PREPARE REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT |SOMERSET FARMS LLC, PROOF OF ISERVICE; TRAVEL TO VENTURA ISUPERIOR COURT TO FILE DOCUMENTS JAND OBTAIN DEFAULT IN SOMERSET 5.50 $300.00 $1,650.00 6/3/2003 DBC PREPARE REPLY TO REDMOND'S OPPOSITION TO OUR FOUR APPLICATIONS| FOR ADDITIONAL WRITS OF ATTACHMENT, PREPARE DETAILED DECLARATION OF DBC. 6.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 6/6/2003 IFINALIZE REDMOND REPLY BRIEF; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE REDMOND REPLY BRIEF; FINALIZE DECL. IN SUPPORT OF REDMOND REPLY BRIEF; REVIEW AND PREPARE EXHIBITS TO DECL.; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE |DECL; FINALIZE OPPOSITION TO. IDEMURRER IN NSF; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE NSF5; LETTER TO ANDREW JABLON; T/C WITH RESEARCH CLERK VSC ; TRAVEL TO VSC FILE REPLY BRIEF AND DBC. [DECLARATION 4.00 $300.00 $1,200.00Date _|Attorney|Description Hours} Rate_| Total Charge | REVIEW SOMERSET REPLY BRIEF, IEVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS ;REVIEW AND. |ANALYSIS OF MAUREEN REDMOND'S. IRESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR |ADMISSION; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF JOHN REDMOND'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; REVIEW |AND ANALYSIS OF GERALDINE IREDMOND'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS |FOR ADMISSIONS; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS JOF MAUREEN REDMOND'S RESPONSES 19/2003 _|_DBC_|TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 3.00 |$300.00| $900.00 REVIEW REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO JDEMURRER, RESEARCH, PREPARE NOTES| FOR ORAL ARGUMENT TOMORROW; REVIEW REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE RIGHT TO ATTACH JORDERS, RESEARCH, PREPARE NOTES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT TOMORROW; IREVIEW OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WRIT OF ATTACHMENT, DECLARATIONS, REPLY, ETC., RESEARCH, PREPARE NOTES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 6/10/2003 |_DBC_|TOMORROW 6.00 | $300.00] $1,800.00 TRAVEL TO AND ARGUE DEMURRER, APPLICATION TO SET-ASIDE WRIT OF |ATTACHMENT AND APPLICATION FOR |ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT; MEMO TO 6/11/2003 |_DBC_|CLIENT RE SOMERSET HEARINGS: 4.25 | $300.00] _ $1,275.00|Attorney| |Description Hours | Rate Total Charge 6124/2003 Dec IRESEARCH RE APPEALABILITY OF ORDER SETTING ASIDE RIGHT TO ATTACH JORDERS, T/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL, }T/C WITH COURT REPORTER, T/C WITH CLERK VSC, PREPARE NOTICE OF |APPEAL, PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, T/C WITH BONDING COMPANY RE APPEAL BOND; [T/C'S WITH COURT RE UNDERTAKINGS; ITIC'S WITH BOND SERVICES; TRAVEL TO COURT TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DISCUSS UNDERTAKING ISSUES WITH SUPERVISING CLERK OF THE COURT; REVIEW LETTER FROM ANDREW JABLON IRE SUBPOENAS ; T/C TO ANDREW JABLON| RE STIPULATION; T/C FROM ANDREW JABLON RE STIPULATION 5.25 $300.00 $1,575.00 6/28/2003 IFINALIZE LETTER TO ANDREW JABLON RE IBOND AND WOA; FINALIZE LETTER TO DBC_|JABLON RE DEMAND 075 $300.00 $225.00 Total: $51,075.00Exhibit C[Attorney Description 6/24/2003} DBC RESEARCH RE APPEALABILITY OF ORDER| SETTING ASIDE RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS, T/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL, ITC WITH COURT REPORTER, TIC WITH ICLERK VSC, PREPARE NOTICE OF |APPEAL, PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, TIC WITH IBONDING COMPANY RE APPEAL BOND: [TIC'S WITH COURT RE UNDERTAKINGS; |T/C'S WITH BOND SERVICES; TRAVEL TO |COURT TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND. DISCUSS UNDERTAKING ISSUES WITH ISUPERVISING CLERK OF THE COURT; REVIEW LETTER FROM ANDREW JABLON IRE SUBPOENAS ; TIC TO ANDREW |JABLON RE STIPULATION; T/C FROM [ANDREW JABLON RE STIPULATION 5.25] $300.00] $1,575.00 6/25/2003] DBC REVISIONS TO NOTICE OF APPEAL, PROOF OF SERVICE; T/C WITH BOND SERVICES RE SOMERSET; COMPLETE BOND APPLICATION, GENERAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, W-9 FORM, ICOLLATERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT: ILETTER TO JABLON RE STIPULATION; LETTER TO JABLON RE DEPOSITIONS; T/C| WITH ANDREW JABLON RE DEPOSITIONS, IDOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND APPEAL; REVIEW JABLON'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA FOR RESPONSE LETTER THERETO, RESEARCH, DRAFT RESPONSE, LETTER 3.00] $300.09) $200.00Date [Attorney| Description Hours: Rate Total Charge 6126/2003} REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM |ANDREW JABLON, RESEARCH CASES ICITED IN LETTER, DRAFT PRELIMINARY RESPONSE;T/C WITH CLERK OF THE COURT IN VSC RE APPEAL BOND; MULTIPLE T/C’S WITH BOND SERVICES; MEETING WITH MARK MARAVELAS RE BOND APPLICATION FORMS; TRAVEL TO JAND MEET WITH APPEALS CLERK AND ICIVIL SUPERVISING CLERK AT VSC RE IFILING APPEAL BOND;T/C WITH ANDREW JABLON RE DEPOSITIONS 3.50] $300.09] $1,050.00 6/28/2005 lpBc FINALIZE LETTER TO ANDREW JABLON RE BOND AND WOA; FINALIZE LETTER TO. JABLON RE DEMAND. 075 $300.00) $225.00 71112003) DBC REVIEW NOTICE FROM THE COURT RE |APPEAL IN SOMERSET; TIC WITH ERIC {SANCHEZ OF JACKSON FEDERAL BANK IRE REDMOND PRODUCTION; T/C WITH CLERK OF THE VENTURA COURT RE TRANSCRIPT FEE; T/C WITH COURT IREPORT KATHY TILQUIST RE TRANSCRIPT FEE; TRAVEL TO COURT TO MEET WITH APPEAL CLERK RE FEE ISSUES 1.50] $300.09) $450.00 7/8/2003) logc PREPARE CASE INFORMATION. ISTATEMENT FOR COURT OF APPEAL IN ISOMERSET; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF IREDMOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE lORDER 2.25] $300.00) $675.00 71112003] pEc. FINALIZE CASE INFORMATION ISTATEMENT, REVIEW CERTIFIED COURT IRECORD, PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE, ISOMERSET; REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANDREW JABLON; LETTER TO. |ANDREW JABLON RE SMLLC DEPOSITION ISCHEDULING 4.00} $300.09) $300.00Date_|Attorney| Description Hours| Rate | Total Charge IRESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF THE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; PREPARATION OF LITIGATION MEMO AND DOCUMENTS FOR |PETE BEZEK; MEETING WITH CLIENT RE ISOMERSET; REVIEW LETTER FROM COURT OF APPEAL RE BRIEFING ISCHEDULE; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES JPROPOUNDED BY GERALDINE REDMOND; REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION PROPOUNDED BY |GERALDINE REDMOND; REVIEW AND |ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. 7/49/2003|DBC_|PROPOUNDED BY GERALDINE REDMOND | _4.00|$300.00| _ $1,200.00 PREPARE SUBPOENA AND PRODUCTION DEMAND FOR DALY; LOCATE HOME |ADDRESS FOR MICHAEL MANN, PREPARE ISUBPOENA AND PRODUCTION DEMAND IFOR MANN; PREPARE NEW DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR ADAMSON; PREPARE VERIFICATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE FOR RESPONSE AND PRODUCTION: MEET| WITH MARK MARAVELAS, GO OVER DISCOVERY RESPONSE AND | VERIFICATION; REVIEW CLIENT IDOCUMENTS FOR PRODUCTION, DISCUSSION WITH CLIENT, T/C TO PETE I]BEZEK; LETTER TO JABLON; RESEARCH JON MARSHA ADAMSON: T/C WITH ICOLLEEN CONNERS RE: SOMERSET, MEMO TO CONNERS; TC WITH BEZEK RE SOMERSET DEPOS;PREPARE |APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 7/26/2003|DBC_|TO FILE OPENING BRIEF IN SOMERSET 4.75|$300.00| _ $1,425.00e Date _|Attorney Description Hours Total Charge REVIEW LETTER FROM ANDREW JABLON; REVIEW RESPONSE LETTER FROM BEZEK| ITO JABLON; REVISIONS TO DEPO ° OUTLINE: PREPARE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, COURT OF APPEAL, PROOF OF SERVICE IN SOMERSET: T/C WITH PETE BEZEK RE REDMOND IDEPOSITION; LOCATE ADDITIONAL IDOCUMENTS FOR PETE BEZEK RE IREDMOND DEPOSITION; T/C WITH ERIC BOLAND RE GERALDINE REDMOND; LETTER TO ERIC BOLAND, GATHER DOCUMENTS FOR ERIC BOLAND;T/C WITH |ANDREW JABLON RE DEPOS; T/C WITH e COLLEEN CONNERS; 2 T/C’S WITH PETE IBEZEK RE DEPO ISSUES;REVISIONS TO EXTENSION REQUEST:MEETING WITH |CLIENT RE SOMERSET DEPOS, PREPARE ISHORT OUTLINE FOR BEZEK; T/C WITH COLLEEN CONNERS RE DEPOS;T/C WITH e 8/5/2003|DBC_|JABLON RE DEPOS §.25|$300.00|__ $1,575.00 IND ATE! nT IMOTION TO STAY: TIC WITH COURT OF |APPEAL RE REDMOND; RESEARCH RE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY AND e ISELF-CALENDARING SYSTEM FOR JUDGE 9/9/2003|D8C__|RIBLET 5.25| $300.00 $1,575.00 IRESEARCH ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY IN REDMOND; RESEARCH JAND PREPARE NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY e 9/10/2003|DBC_JSTAY TO THE COURT OF APPEAL 2.00] $300.00] $600.00 REVIEW LETTER FROM THE COURT OF 9/21/2003]08C_|APPEAL RE REDMOND, MEMO TO CLIENT | _0.25|$300.00] _ $75.00 Prepare letter for delivery to Eric Boland [Travel to and file status report re: bankruptcy e 11/4/2003]REV ___|to Court of Appeals 1.00]$185.00] __$185.00Date__| Attorney Description Hours| Rate | Total Charge [3 TIC'S TO BOND SERVICES RE APPEAL IBOND COLLATERAL; RESEARCH ON 1/12/2004]DBC_|BANKRUPTCY ISSUES FOR REDMOND. 2.00| $300.00] $600.00 IRESEARCH RE REDMOND BANKRUPTCY ISSUES; TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND JAY REDMOND 341A HEARING: T/C WITH ERIC BOLAND RE JAY REDMOND INVESTIGATION; T/C WITH FRANK LANAK. 1/2912004]DBC_|RE SOMERSET APPEAL BOND. 5.75|$300.00| $1,725.00 H/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL RE IREDMOND; STATUS REPORT TO COURT JOF APPEAL RE REDMOND; PREPARE NEW| ISUBPOENA AND DOCUMENT 4/2/2004|DBC__|PRODUCTION DEMAND FOR OHACO 1.75|$300.00|__ $525.00 Revise notice of association of counsel, |Conference with Ryan Vos regarding filing and lservice of same, and regarding meet and lconfer letter to defense counsel: Review ldocuments relating to bankruptcy stay; Review land revise letter to appellate court regardinig 6/23/2004|PJV__|bankruptey stay issues. 1.25|$300.00| _ $375.00 [Telephone conference with bonding company 7/43/2004|REV___|re: appeal bond; Meet with David Chatfield 0.50|$185.00|__$92.50 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REDMOND'S MOTION FOR AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING |SCHEDULE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL; |PREPARE OPPOSITION TO REDMOND MOTION FOR AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING 7118/2004|D8C__|SCHEDULE 5.00] $300.00] _ $1,500.00 RESEARCH, DRAFT REVISIONS TO, REVIEW EXHIBITS FOR, AND ASSEMBLY OF SOMERSET APPEAL OPPOSITION, T/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL; FINALIZE BRIEF 7H16/2004)D8C__|IN SOMERSET 5.75] $300.00] _ $1,725.00Date Attorney| Description Hours| Total Charge 7/19/2004] REV. IMeet with David Chatfield; Locate and prepare [documents for opposition; Prepare opposition {for filing; Travel to Court of Appeal; Prepare lopposition for service 3.00] $185.00} $555.00 7/20/2004| REV [T/C with David Chatfield re: Redmond Motion Ito Dismiss Appeal; Review Motion 0.50] $185.00 $92.50 7/23/2004| DBC REVIEW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN IREDMOND. MEMO TO CLIENT AND BEZEK 0.25) $300.00] $75.00 7/24/2004) DBC REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REDMOND'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, RESEARCH. 475 $300.00} $1,425.00 7/25/2004] lpBc CONTINUED RESEARCH AND FOR PREPARATION OF REDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF 2.25] $300.00] $675.00 7/2612004| DBC PREPARE REDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF 5.25| $300.00] $1,575.00 7/2712004| DBC IRESEARCH AND REVISIONS TO IREDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF 6.75) $2,025.00 7/2712004| Pav [Review and revise opposition to motion to Idismiss appeal; Conferences with David |Chatfield regarding same. 1.25] $300.00] 4s $300.00} $375.00 7128/2004] DBC FINAL ‘APPELLATE BRIEF, PREPARE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, PREPARE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, REVIEW IBOUND BRIEF, PREPARE FOR SERVICE JAND FILING 3.50) $300.00] $1,050.00 73/2004) DBC REVIEW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION DENYING REDMOND'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, MEMO TO CLIENT AND BEZEK 0.25] $300.00] $75.00 8/4/2004) Pav [Conferences with David Chatfield and Ryan [Vos ruling on motion to dismiss appeal; and regarding discovery issues and potential Imotion to compel 0.25] $300.00} $75.00 10/21/2004] DBC [T/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL RE REDMOND; STATUS LETTER TO COURT OF APPEAL RE REDMOND 0.75) $300.00] $225.00Date __| Attorney] Description |Hours| Total Charge 7/19/2004|REV Meet with David Chatfield, Locate and prepare [documents for opposition; Prepare opposition for filing; Travel to Court of Appeal; Prepare lopposition for service 3.00] $185.00} $555.00 7/20/2004|REV [T/C with David Chatfield re: Redmond Motion to Dismiss Appeal; Review Motion 0.50] $185.00} $92.50, 7123/2004|DBC. IREVIEW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN IREDMOND, MEMO TO CLIENT AND BEZEK 0.25) $300.00] $75.00 7/24/2004|D8C. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REDMOND'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, RESEARCH 475| $300.00} $1,425.00 7/25/2004|DBC. [CONTINUED RESEARCH AND FOR |PREPARATION OF REDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF 2.25) $300.00 $675.00 7/2512004|DBC. PREPARE REDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF _| 5.25) $300.00] $1,575.00 7/2712004|DBC. RESEARCH AND REVISIONS TO IREDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF 6.75 $300.00} $2,025.00 7/2712004]PJV [Review and revise opposition to motion to \dismiss appeal; Conferences with David 7/26/2004|DBC 41.25] $300.00} $375.00 |Chatfield regarding same. FINALIZE REDMOND APPELLATE BRIEF IPREPARE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND |TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, PREPARE |CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, REVIEW IBOUND BRIEF, PREPARE FOR SERVICE JAND FILING 3.50] $300.00} $1,050.00 8/3/2004|DBC. REVIEW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION DENYING REDMOND’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, MEMO TO CLIENT AND. BEZEK 0.25] $300.00} $75.00 e/4/2004|PJv_ |Conferences with David Chatfield and Ryan |Vos ruling on motion to dismiss appeal; and ltegarding discovery issues and potential Imotion to compel 0.25] $300.00] $75.00 10/21/2004|D8C. [T/C WITH COURT OF APPEAL RE IREDMOND; STATUS LETTER TO COURT OF APPEAL RE REDMOND 0.75] $300.00] $225.00Date [Attorney|, Description Hours} Rate_| Total Charge 12/3+/2004| lpBc IPREPARE QUARTERLY REPORT LETTER TO COURT OF APPEAL IN REDMOND; LETTER TO STEVEN STANLEY; PREPARE PRE-TRAIL CONFERENCE ORDER; RESEARCH ON AMENDMENT TO ICOMPLAINT IN REDMOND BANKRUPTCY. 3.75| $300.00] _ $1,125.00 4/5/2005] IDBC Prepare letter to court of appeal 0.50] $300.00] $150.00 5/10/2005] [DBC [Quarterly status letter to court of appeal [0:59] $300.00] $150.00 Total: $28,000.00Exhibit D10/9/2002 loac SEVERAL TIC'S WITH GAGGERO RE SOMERSET; RESEARCH, REVIEW TRO AND DECLARATIONS, IDISCUSS WITH GAGGERO, PREPARE MOTION TO. IDISSOLVE OR MODIFY THE TRO; PREPARE |JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S EXAM FORM: PREPARE DECLARATION FOR COLLEEN O'BRIEN; PREPARE DECLARATION FOR LAURIE CANTY; PREPARE |DECLARATION FOR INDIVIDUAL BOARDERS: TIC WITH JAY FRIEDMAN RE SOMERSET INVESTIGATION; Tic WITH SHERIFF RE SERVICE AND PROCEDURES. IFOR ATTACHMENT; RESEARCH ON REDMOND COURT RECORDS AND HISTORY; MEETING WITH IGAGGERO, KIM CRUSER AND LAURIE KANT 8.75] $300.00] $2,625.00 1011072002] lose |MEET WITH LAURIE CANTI AND KATRINE NIELSEN AT |THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INTERVIEW THEM, GO |THROUGH THE BARN AND REVIEW MISSING ITEMS, |COLLECT INFORMATION FOR DECLARATIONS RE |SOMERSET; PREPARE DECLARATIONS OF LAURIE ICANTI AND TWO DECLARATIONS FOR KATRINE NIELSON; PREPARE DECLARATION OF DAVID |CHATFIELD RE SERVICE; REVIEW AND PRINT OUT IPICTURES FOR EXHIBITS, PREPARE EXHIBITS, |PREPARE CIVIL COVERSHEETS COPY AND PREPARE |FOR FILING; TRAVEL TO AND ATTEND TO FILING AND. LODGING OF DECLARATIONS WITH VSC RE |SOMERSET; REVIEW COURT RECORDS ON |GERALDINE REDMOND FROM LASC, VSC, AND EL PASO SUPERIOR COURT; PREPARE DECLARATION |OF KEELEY MIRCETIC RE SOMERSET 57 $300.00] $1,725.00,1011672002] lose REVIEW AND CORRECTIONS TO SMG DECLARATION; IBEGIN PREPARATION OF OPPOSITION TO PETITION IFOR INJUNCTION; PREPARE DECLARATION OF DAVID| IBLAKE CHATFIELD; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE; PREPARE DECLARATION OF LAURIE CANTY; REVIEW DECLARATION OF DIANE MCNAIR; FORMAT AND |PREPARE 3 REVISIONS TO DECLARATION OF |STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; TRAVEL TO EQUESTRIAN |CENTER TWICE TO MEET WITH LAURIE CANTY: [TRAVEL TO COURT TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS FILED TODAY IN TRO, SIT IN ON COURT SESSION IN DEPT |32 AND 41, AND MEET WITH SHERIFF'S PERSONNEL IRE TRO SERVICE; DRAFT OPPOSITION TO PETITION. |FOR INJUNCTION: T/C WITH GEORGIA JORDEN AND |PREPARE DECLARATION OF GEORGIA JORDEN; IREVIEW GAGGERO DECLARATION AND ASSEMBLE |EXHIBITS FOR FILING; PREPARE JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INJUNCTION; MEMO TO GAGGERO RE TRO. 1175 $300.00] $3,525.00 10/17/2002] pec. |TRAVEL TO AND MEET WITH GEORGIA JORDEN TO |OBTAIN SIGNATURE ON HER DECLARATION: IREVISIONS TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR INJUNCTION; PREPARE JC FORM RESPONSE DOCUMENTS; PREPARE DECLARATION OF DAVID ICHATFIELD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR INJUNCTION; TRAVEL TO AND FILE. RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR INJUNCTION; PREPARE PROOF OF SERVICE FOR |SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON. |GERALDINE REDMOND. 7754 $300.00] $2,325.00 10/21/2002 lbsc [TRAVEL TO AND APPEAR AT HEARING ON EDMONDS PETITION FOR INJUNCTION: MEMO TO |CLIENT RE STATUS; T/C WITH GAGGERO RE STATUS: [TRAVEL TO AND MEET WITH VENTURA COUNTY |SHERIFF RE SOMERSET WRIT; PREPARE ITEMIZED IINVOICES ON PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR |SUBMISSION TO COURT WITH COST BILL; PREPARE ICOST BILL FOR FILING WITH COURT ON REDMOND V. GAGGERO; TIC WITH GAGGERO RE STATUS AND STRATEGY. $300.09] $2,100.0010/24/2002] lpac lDescri Hours |PREPARE COST BILL AND PROOF OF SERVICE FOR HRO INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES, ENTAILING IBREAKOUT OF TRO FEES FROM CONTRACT MATTER;| TRAVEL TO COURT TO FILE COST BILL AND MEET |WITH SHERIFF RE SOMERSET WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; T/C WITH COWAN RE SOMERSET; MEETING WITH GAGGERO TO DISCUSS SOMERSET 3.75] $200.00] Char $1,125.00 1025/2002] pac [T/C WITH TOM SPAETH AT FERNANDO'S CHECK |CASHING; PUT TOGETHER PACKAGE OF REDMOND RELATED DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED THE LAPD; PREPARE STIPULATION FOR ORDER SEALING THE. |COURT FILE; PREPARE PROPOSED ORDER: |PREPARE LETTER TO REDMOND'S COUNSEL RE |STIPULATION TO SEAL COURT FILE; TRAVEL TO IMEET WITH TOM SPAETH TO OBTAIN COPY OF |SOMERSET/REDMOND BAD CHECK 2.25] $300.09] $675.00 sor2sr2002] lose TRAVEL TO VSC AND FILE COST BILL, REVIEW. |SOMERSET BOND APPLICATIONS AND PREPARE. ICHECK REQUEST 0.75| $300.00] $225.00 10/31/2002) pac IREVIEW MEMORANDUM OF GARNISHEE SOMERSET: REVIEW LETTER FROM REDMOND’S COUNSEL RE |COST BILL; REVIEW LETTER FROM REDMOND’ COUNSEL RE STIPULATION TO SEAL FILE; LETTER TO} |COUNSEL FOR REDMOND RE TRO FEES; LETTER TO COUNSEL FOR REDMOND RE SEALING TRO FILE 1754 $300.09] $525.00 15/200: pec. [RESEARCH MOTION TO SEAL IN REDMOND TRO- RESEARCH AND REVIEW BILLINGS FOR MOTION FOR] ATTORNEYS FEES RE REDMOND TRO 0.75] $300.00] $225.00 s17r2000 loec IFINALIZE DEPOSITION NOTICES IN SOMERSET, PREPARE 1 PROOFS OF SERVICE; ORGANIZE [SOMERSET FILE AND TRO FILE 1.00) $300.00] $300.00 1/14/2000] psc. IT/C WITH JEFFREY COWAN REGARDING BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS; TIC WITH JEFFREY COWAN REGARDING HIS CLIENT'S ASSETS AND THE DEPOSITION SCHEDULING; PREPARE AND FILE INOTICE RE MEMORANDUM OF COSTS; PREPARE INOTICE OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 1.50) $300.09] $450.00