Opinion
Case No. 2:13-bk-12977-RK
07-13-2018
In re: DOWENT FAMILY LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION Chapter 11 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON: (1) MOTION OF DEBTOR FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION BY DEBTOR FOR AN ORDER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND (2) DEBTOR'S BILL OF COSTS
Pending before the court are two matters filed by Dowent Family, LLC ("Debtor"): (1) the Motion by Debtor for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in Connection with Motion by Debtor for an Order Disallowing the Claim of Efpar Development, LLC ("Fee Motion"), Electronic Case Filing (or Docket) Number ("ECF") 410, and (2) the Bill of Costs, ECF 412, both filed on September 23, 2015, wherein Debtor seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $294,212.50 and costs in the amount of $7,385.89 against Efpar Development, LLC ("Efpar"). In response, Efpar filed an objection to the Bill of Costs, ECF 415, filed on September 29, 2015, and an opposition to the Motion, ECF 416, filed on October 13, 2015. Debtor filed a reply to Efpar's Opposition. ECF 417, filed on October 20, 2015. Debtor is represented by the law firm of Ringstad & Sanders LLP ("R&S") of Irvine, California. Efpar is represented by the Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C. of Santa Monica, California.
The court continued the initial hearing on the Fee Motion and the Bill of Costs on October 27, 2015 to February 2, 2016 in order to allow Debtor and Efpar to file supplemental briefing addressing the reasonableness of Debtor's requested attorneys' fees. ECF 420, entered on October 26, 2015. Both Efpar and Debtor filed supplemental briefs as ordered. See ECF 427 and 432, filed on December 15, 2015 and January 12, 2016, respectively. Thereafter, the court took both the Fee Motion and the Bill of Costs under submission.
Having considered the Fee Motion and the Bill of Costs, the opposing and reply papers, the arguments and further briefing of the parties, and the record before the court, the court now rules on the Motion and the Bill of Costs as set forth in this memorandum decision.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2013, Efpar filed a proof of claim in this bankruptcy case that asserted a claim against Debtor in the total amount of $1,878,333.32 ("Claim"). Claims Register, Claim No. 2-1, filed on April 12, 2013. As stated in the proof of claim, the basis for the claim was "$100,000 deposit taken by Debtor & Breach of Purchase Agt." Id. Efpar asserted that the amount of the $100,000.00 deposit was a secured claim based on a "vendee lien", and that the remaining amount of the claim was an unsecured claim for damages for breach of contract. Id. As discussed below, Efpar asserted this claim against Debtor for breach of a contract for purchase and sale of certain real property that Debtor had agreed to sell to Efpar.
On April 8, 2014, Debtor filed its Motion for an Order Disallowing Efpar's Claim ("Claim Disallowance Motion"), requesting an order disallowing Efpar's Claim in its entirety, or, in the alternative, reducing the Claim to a nonpriority general unsecured claim not to exceed $75,000.00. ECF 215 at 2.
In its opposition to the Motion for an Order Disallowing Efpar's Claim, Efpar argued that the amount of its claim was $2,846,161.55. ECF 229 at 8, filed on April 29, 2014. Efpar's opposition to Debtor's Claim Disallowance Motion consisted of 10 pages of argument, a 5 page declaration of Farim Efraim, Efpar's managing member, a 1 page declaration of Saul Reiss, Efpar's counsel and about 150 pages of exhibits, including copies of the pleadings relating to Debtor's motion to reject the contract for sale of the subject real property with David Zander, another and different buyer of Debtor's real property (Debtor had sold the real property to two different parties at the same time), Debtor's motion to approve sale of the property and compromise with Efpar and the court's order establishing bidding procedures and sale terms for the sale of the subject property in this case. In its opposition, Efpar argued that: (1) Debtor has not met the standard to shift the burden of proof on Efpar's proof of claim to Efpar; (2) Debtor should be judicially estopped from denying the validity of its claim based on its position in support of the motion to approve compromise of Efpar's claim; (3) the contract was not terminated, but in full force as amended with any prior breaches waived; (4) there was no mutual mistake of law to void the contract; (5) Efpar was ready, willing and able to purchase the subject property under the contract, and Debtor was not entitled to retain any of Efpar's $100,000 deposit as liquidated damages; (6) Efpar's loss of bargain damages exceeded $75,000 based on the existence of the Dollar Tree Lease disclosed to Debtor in full force; and (7) Efpar mitigated its damages contrary to Debtor's arguments.
The court notes that Efpar did not expressly state this figure for its claim. Rather, Efpar set forth several figures it asserted comprised its claim, with these figures adding up to $2,846,161.55. At trial, Efpar asserted a claim of $2,582,777.40.
The Claim Disallowance Motion was litigated as a contested matter under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014, and the court conducted a two-day trial of the matter on December 18 and 19, 2014. In their respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Claim Disallowance Motion submitted after trial, Debtor requested that the court enter an order that it only owed Efpar $100,000, ECF 375, lodged on February 27, 2015, and Efpar requested that the court enter an order allowing its claim in the amount of $2,582,777.40, ECF 376 at 47-48, lodged on February 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the court filed and entered its Memorandum Decision on Debtor's Motion for Order Disallowing Claim of Efpar Development, LLC ("Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision"), which granted it in part and denied it in part. ECF 399, filed and entered on August 11, 2015. The court determined that Efpar has an allowed, non-priority, general unsecured claim against Debtor's bankruptcy estate in the amount of $130,192.00, plus pre-judgment, pre-petition interest. Id. On August 24, 2015, the court filed and entered its judgment granting in part and denying in part the Claim Disallowance Motion. ECF 403. The judgment is now final and nonappealable because no timely appeal was taken. Subsequently, Debtor filed its Fee Motion and Bill of Costs.
DISCUSSION
Through the Fee Motion and Bill of Costs, Debtor requests an award of $294,212.50 in attorneys' fees and $7,385.89 in costs against Efpar based on the fees and costs incurred by Debtor for the services of its attorneys, R&S, for the work they performed related to the contested matter of the Claim Disallowance Motion. ECF 410 and 412. Debtor bases its Fee Motion on an attorneys' fee provision from the Standard Offer, Agreement and Escrow Instructions for Purchase of Real Estate (the "Sale Agreement") between Debtor and Efpar for the sale and purchase of the subject real property, which this court found to be a valid and enforceable contract between the parties. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 15-17. Although the Sale Agreement was modified by both an addendum and second amendment, both of which were found to be valid contractual modifications of the Sale Agreement, Id. at 16-17, neither party presented evidence nor argued that the attorneys' fee provision from the Sale Agreement was modified through either the addendum or second amendment, and thus, no longer enforceable.
Paragraph 16 of the Sale Agreement states:
If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding (including arbitration) involving the Property whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term "Prevailing Party" shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defense. The attorneys' fees award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedules, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys' fees reasonably incurred.Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶ 16 (emphasis added). Debtor relies upon California Civil Code § 1717 for its Fee Motion and Bill of Costs, which provides as follows:
(a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.
. . .
Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.
. . .
(b)(1) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section.California Civil Code § 1717.
Efpar filed a written opposition to Debtor's fee motion and made the following arguments: (1) Debtor did not seek costs and attorneys' fees in its motion to disallow Efpar's claim, the Claim Disallowance Motion; (2) the claims objection was not a breach of contract action subject to the attorneys' fees clause of the Sale Agreement; (3) the Sale Agreement did not provide for an award of attorneys' fees in this case; (4) no attorneys' fees are permissible because Efpar's claim was made in good faith; (5) Debtor is not the prevailing party on the Claim Disallowance Motion; (6) arguably, there was no prevailing party in this action; (7) the attorneys' fees sought by Debtor are unreasonable, excessive and not necessarily incurred; and (8) Efpar is the prevailing party entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Efpar's Opposition, ECF 416, filed on October 13, 2016. In response to the court's order requesting further briefing on the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees claimed by Debtor, Efpar filed a supplemental written opposition to Debtor's fee motion which elaborated on its original opposition. Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427, filed on December 15, 2015. Efpar argued that Debtor was not the prevailing party on the Claim Disallowance Motion because Debtor lost its main objective in the litigation because the court rejected Debtor's legal theories and litigation objective, Debtor lost on its secondary and less desired objective and Debtor is not entitled to recover attorneys' fees for arguments as to which it lost and were found to be incorrect. Id. at 2-12. Efpar further argued that the applicable authority before the bankruptcy court mandates the rejection of Debtor's claim to be the prevailing party. Id. at 13-14. Efpar also argued that Debtor's rejection of the executory provisions of the Sale Agreement extinguished the attorneys' fee provision of the agreement. Id. at 14-16. Efpar reiterated its arguments that Debtor should not be awarded attorneys' fees because Debtor did not seek attorneys' fees in its motion objecting to Efpar's claim, that no party prevailed in this action, or that alternatively, Efpar's request for attorneys' fees should be granted. Id. at 12-13, 19-22. In arguing that the amount of attorneys' fees sought by Debtor is unreasonable, Efpar further argued that its attorneys did not charge clients when they consult with each other unlike Debtor's counsel. Id. at 22.
Debtor in its reply to Efpar's written opposition to its fee motion and in its supplemental response to Efpar's supplemental opposition to the fee motion disputes Efpar's contentions that the fee motion should be denied, or the fees be disallowed or substantially reduced. The court addresses the parties' contentions below.
I. DEBTOR IS THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE CONTRACT
In order to be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees under the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717, the court must first determine whether Debtor is entitled to such award as the prevailing party in an action or proceeding covered by California Civil Code § 1717. As stated by the court in Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698 (1998), "[i]f a cause of action is 'on a contract,' and the contract provides that the prevailing party shall recover attorneys' fees incurred to enforce the contract, then attorneys' fees must be awarded on the contract claim in accordance with Civil Code section 1717." 64 Cal.App.4th at 706-707, citing and quoting, Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 615-617 (1998).
California Civil Code § 1717(b) provides that "the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract." In deciding whether there is a prevailing party on a contract, the California Supreme Court stated:
The trial court is to compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties' demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources. The prevailing party determination is to be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by a comparison of the extent to which each party ha[s] succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863, 876 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The California Supreme Court in Hsu v. Abbara further stated that "in determining litigation success, courts should respect substance rather than form, and to this extent should be guided by 'equitable considerations.'" Id. at 877 (emphasis in original); see also, Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 34 Cal.4th 553, 565 (noting that the California Supreme Court has "taken a broad, pragmatic view of what constitutes a 'successful party.'"). "[P]laintiffs may be considered 'prevailing parties' for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.'" Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 153 (2006) (emphasis in original), citing and quoting, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
As discussed below, the court determines that Debtor is the prevailing party within the meaning of the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717. But before the court addresses why Debtor is the prevailing party under these provisions, the court first considers and addresses several threshold arguments made by Efpar.
Efpar first argues that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded against it under the Sale Agreement because the Sale Agreement provides that attorneys' fees can only be awarded in a tort, contract, or equitable action. Efpar's Opposition to Debtor's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, ECF 416 at 6-7. According to Efpar, because Debtor seeks attorneys' fees for work related to a claim objection rather than a contract action, and therefore, the court cannot award attorneys' fees in this case against it. The court rejects this argument. The Sale Agreement states a prevailing party is entitled to an award of its attorneys' fees against the other party for any action or proceeding involving the subject property, whether sounding in contract, tort or equity, and California Civil Code § 1717(a) states that "[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs. See Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶16 ("If any Party. . .brings an action or proceeding...involving whether the Property whether founded in tort, contract, or equity. . .the Prevailing Party. . .in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.").
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001, Efpar filed its proof of claim in this bankruptcy case on grounds that Debtor owed it a debt for damages for breaching the contract to sell the subject property to Efpar, the Sale Agreement. Debtor disputed the claim and filed its motion objecting to Efpar's claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3007 and 9013, commencing this contested matter under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014, which made applicable most of the procedural litigation rules pertaining to adversary proceedings under Part VII of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014(c) and rules cited therein. Although this litigation of the contested matter between Debtor and Efpar was to determine whether Efpar held an allowable claim against Debtor's bankruptcy estate, the dispute was an action or proceeding sounding in contract because the issues before the court were whether Debtor breached its contract with Efpar, and if so, how much were Efpar's contractual damages. Efpar's argument fails because the litigation of the contested matter between the parties was an action or proceeding sounding in contract in that Efpar, by filing its proof of claim based on the contract, was seeking to enforce the contract and recover damages for breach of contract from Debtor's bankruptcy estate and Debtor, by filing its motion objecting to Efpar's claim, disputed Efpar's claim or right to enforce the contract. As such, Efpar's position is inconsistent with the plain language of California Civil Code § 1 717 and the attorneys' fees provision in the Sale Agreement which provide that attorneys' fees are to be awarded to the prevailing party on "any action on a contract" and "any such [contract] proceeding." See California Civil Code § 1717(a); See Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶16. Efpar offers no persuasive reason why the contested matter litigated between the parties by Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim for contractual damages is not an action or proceeding for purposes of the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code §1717. Thus, the court concludes that because the claim objection was an action or proceeding sounding in contract where Efpar was seeking to enforce its claim sounding in contract against Debtor, based on the contract for sale of the subject property, the court has legal authority to make an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party under the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717.
Efpar also argues that Debtor's rejection of the Sale Agreement extinguished the applicability of the contractual provision for an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, and it argues that Debtor cannot reject the Sale Agreement and "choose provisions that suit its needs and ignore others." Efpar's Supplemental Brief, ECF 427 at 15. Efpar's argument lacks merit because it is based on a misunderstanding of the effect of contract rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g). Rejection of a lease or contract "does not rescind the lease [or contract] or defeat any pending claims or defenses that the debtor had in regard to that lease [or contract]." In re Onecast Media, Inc., 439 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir. 2006), citing, 3 Resnick and Sommer, Collier on Bankruptcy § 365.09[1] (15th rev. ed. 2005) ("Rejection does not . . . affect the parties' substantive rights under the contract or lease, such as the amount owing or a measure of damages for breach and does not waive any defenses to the contract). Rather, "'[a] rejection of an unexpired lease removes the lease from the bankruptcy estate,'" and "'constitutes a breach of such contract or lease' that is effective immediately before the petition for bankruptcy." Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. § 365(g). When Debtor rejected the contract, the Sale Agreement, the rejection constituted a breach, not a rescission. Because the contract was not rescinded, the attorneys' fee provision of the contract was not extinguished and remains enforceable. As to Efpar's related argument that Debtor is improperly bypassing the arbitration clause in seeking attorneys' fees by motion, Efpar had the right under the Sale Agreement still in force to proceed with arbitration of the dispute over liquidated damages of Debtor as the seller and the return of Efpar's deposit money as the buyer, but waived such right as argued by Debtor since Efpar did not invoke its right to arbitration with a demand for arbitration when Debtor filed its motion objecting to Efpar's claim, but instead litigated the dispute at law through trial in this court. See In re Transport Associates, Inc., 263 B.R. 531, 536 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2001) ("The party seeking to enforce an arbitration clause must demand arbitration within a reasonable time after the filing of the action at law by the opposing party."), citing American Locomotive Co. v. Gyro Process Co., 185 F.2d 316 (6th Cir. 1950). Thus, the court rejects Efpar's arguments that the Sale Agreement, including the attorneys' fee provision, is unenforceable due to rejection because the attorneys' fee provision in the Sale Agreement remains enforceable.
Efpar further argues that Debtor is not the prevailing party because Debtor did not accomplish its "main litigation objective . . . to disallow Efpar's entire claim." Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 3 (emphasis added). Thus, Efpar reasons, because the court found Efpar has a "non-priority, general unsecured claim against Debtor's bankruptcy estate in the amount of $130,192.00[,]" Debtor cannot be the prevailing party, as the court did not disallow Efpar's entire claim. This argument of Efpar's also lacks merit. First, Efpar mischaracterizes Debtor's main litigation objective in that Efpar itself acknowledges that Debtor requested Efpar's claim be disallowed in entirety or "in the alternative, reduced to an amount not to exceed $75,000 as a nonpriority, general unsecured claim." Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 4. Assuming for the sake of argument that "primary objective" is the test for prevailing party under California Civil Code § 1717, while Efpar correctly asserts that Debtor likely preferred the claim be entirely disallowed, preference is not necessarily the same as a primary objective. Although Debtor preferred Efpar's claim be entirely disallowed, Debtor's actions suggest that Debtor's litigation objective was not to entirely disallow Efpar's claim, that is, at trial, Debtor conceded that it owed Efpar $100,000 for the escrow deposits paid under the Sale Agreement. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 14, ¶56. If Debtor's primary objective was to seek complete disallowance of Efpar's claim, then Debtor's concession at trial presumably works against this goal. In contrast, these actions are not inconsistent if Debtor's primary objective was to reduce Efpar's claim.
Efpar asserted post-trial that its claim for damages totaled $2,582,777.40. While Debtor acknowledged at trial that Efpar was entitled to its two escrow deposits totaling $100,000, Debtor continued to litigate its position that Efpar was not entitled to the entire amount of damages it sought. It is unlikely that Debtor would have made this concession if Debtor sought to entirely disallow Efpar's claim. Thus, the court determines that Debtor's primary objective in this litigation was to reduce Efpar's claim as much as possible. However, whether Debtor achieved its primary litigation objective is really beside the point, with the point being whether Debtor is the prevailing party for purposes of the attorneys' fee provision of the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717.
The court determines that Debtor is the prevailing party in the claim objection litigation. When determining whether there is a prevailing party, the court may look to the contractual definition of prevailing party. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal. 4th at 622. The Sale Agreement defines the term prevailing party as the party "who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought[.]" See Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶16 (emphasis added). Efpar argues that under this definition, the court cannot find that Debtor is the prevailing party, Efpar is the prevailing party, or neither Efpar nor Debtor is the prevailing party. The court rejects this argument. First, as discussed above, Debtor's primary litigation objective was to reduce Efpar's claim, and Debtor achieved this objective as Efpar's claim was substantially reduced from $2,582,777.40 to $130,192.00, which is a 95% reduction in amount. Judgment Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion by Debtor for an Order Disallowing the Claim of Efpar Development, LLC, ECF 403. Debtor is also the prevailing party based on the definition in the Sale Agreement, because Debtor substantially defeated the relief Efpar sought, which was allowance of a claim for damages of $2,582,777.40 because the court only allowed Efpar's claim for damages in the amount of $130,192.00, which was only 5% of what Efpar sought.
In contrast, Debtor's initial litigation position was that Efpar's claim should be entirely disallowed or in the alternative, only allowed in an amount not to exceed $75,000, but later conceded at trial that Efpar's claim should be allowed in the amount of $100,000 for its two escrow deposits and damages not more than $2,500 for a total allowed claim of $102,500. The court's final ruling that Efpar's allowed claim for damages was $130,192.00 is much closer to Debtor's position than Efpar's (i.e., $27,000 versus $2.4 million). As the court stated in De La Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal.App.4th 1287 (2011), "If the results in a case are lopsided in terms of one party obtaining 'greater relief' than the other in comparative terms, it may be an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to recognize that the party obtaining the 'greater' relief was indeed the prevailing party." 193 Cal.App.4th at 1295 (emphasis in original; citation omitted). Such lopsided results in favor of Debtor exist here.
The court rejects Efpar's contention that it is the prevailing party, Efpar's Opposition to Debtor's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, ECF 416 at 17, because while the court awarded Efpar damages, Efpar cannot be said to be the party which substantially obtained the relief it sought, only obtaining 5% of the relief sought, while Debtor substantially defeated Efpar's claim for relief by reducing the allowed claim by 95%. Efpar cannot argue that it is the prevailing party because it only sought to receive some damages. Efpar initially sought damages of $1,878,333.32 as stated on its proof of claim filed in this case, which amount was increased to $2,582,777.40 post-trial. When the court only allowed Efpar's claim for damages in the amount of $130,192.00 after it sought $2,582,777.40, Efpar failed to substantially obtain the relief it sought, and under the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717, Efpar cannot be determined to be the prevailing party entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in this case. Accordingly, because the court determines that Debtor is the prevailing party in this case, the court also determines that Debtor is entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717.
Efpar also argues that Debtor should not receive attorneys' fees for work related to arguments that Debtor lost. Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 11-12. Efpar contends that allowing Debtor to recover fees for arguments that it won and lost amounts to "double recovery," and that permitting this type of recovery encourages attorneys to "spend substantial amount of time citing to legal authorities which were inapplicable and then attempt to recover attorneys' fees for the same." Id. at 12. The court rejects this argument because the attorneys' fees provision in the Sale Agreement provides that a prevailing party may recover attorneys' fees if it prevails in the action to enforce the contract. Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶16. Contrary to Efpar's argument, there is no limitation in this provision which prevents Debtor as the prevailing party from recovering attorneys' fees for work related to unsuccessful arguments. This would be also consistent with the plain language of California Civil Code § 1717. Under California Civil Code § 1717(a), "where a contract provides for attorneys' fees...that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract" (emphasis added). California Civil Code § 1717(b) also provides, "the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract" (emphasis added). If the court were only allowed to award fees for successful arguments, then California Civil Code § 1717 would have likely included language requiring the court to only award fees related to successful arguments. The plain statutory language in California Civil Code § 1717 is inconsistent with Efpar's argument, and Efpar has not cited any legal authority that suggests this section should be interpreted differently. The court also rejects Efpar's contention that awarding attorneys' fees for work related to unsuccessful arguments will encourage attorneys to purposefully advance "inapplicable" arguments to inflate their fees. Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 11-12. Efpar's concern is addressed by the limitation in California Civil Code § 1717 that only reasonable attorneys' fees may be awarded, and thus, the limitation is not as to unsuccessful arguments, but as to unreasonable ones, which should discourage improper legal advocacy, not proper advocacy. Because California Civil Code § 1717 provides that a prevailing party can only recover "reasonable attorney's fees" that are "fixed by the court," attorneys will likely not bill excessively, for fear of risking some fees being disallowed by the court. California Civil Code § 1717(a).
II. REASONABLENESS OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CLAIMED FOR THE SERVICES OF RINGSTAD & SANDERS
In its original opposition to Debtor's fee motion, Efpar made the following arguments that the attorneys' fees sought by Debtor are unreasonable, excessive and not necessarily incurred, which are quoted at length and verbatim:
Dowent seeks the sum of $294,212.50 for attorneys' fees for services rendered by attorneys Mr. Chris Minier (hourly rate of $375), Brian Nelson (hourly rate of $350) and Mr. Todd Ringstad (hourly rate of $625). Mr. Nelson allegedly spent 196.6 hours, Mr. Minier spent 399.3 hours and Mr. Ringstad spent 159.7 [hours] for the total of 755.6 hours for a simple breach of contract claim.
The said fees were unnecessarily incurred and are clearly unreasonable. There are no declarations from Mr. Nelson and Mr. Ringstad regarding their hours. This action involved a simple claim. There were few witnesses in a short two day trial. There was no need for three attorneys to work on such a simple case. Furthermore, this action did not require over 755 hours of attorney services. Finally as evidenced by the Court's ruling after the trial, Dowent's counsel lost on virtually every single argument.
A substantial amount of work was duplicated and rebilled. For example, Mr. Nelson bills the following hours for research and draft of memorandum regarding measure of damages in a breach of contract to sell real property (Efpar's claim): 0.30 hours on 2/11/13, 0.80 hours on 2/11/13 and 1.10 hours on 2/12/13. This work is duplicated by Mr. Minier on 8/29/13, 0.90 hours and Mr. Minier spent substantial amount of time analyzing the issue of proper measure of damages for breach of contract to sell real property as follows: 0.20 hours on 8/29/13, 0.40 on 8/29/13, 0.20 hours on 9/4/13, 0.40 hours on 9/4/13 and 0.20 hours on 9/4/13. Thereafter, Mr. Minier again spends time analyzing Efpar's claim, which was essentially the amount of damages for breach of contract as follows: 0.20 hours on 9/5/13, 0.20 hours on 9/5/13, 2 hours on 9/6/13, 0.20 hours on 9/10/13, 0.10 hours
on 9/10/13, 0.50 hours on 9/10/13, 0.10 hours on 9/10/13, 0.30 hours on 9/10/13, 0.10 hours on 9/11/13 and 1.60 hours on 9/11/13.Opposition, ECF 416 at 16-17.
Mr. Nelson allegedly spent 71.1 hours working on the Dowent's Motion to disallow Efpar's claim starting on January 7, 2014 through April 8, 2014. This work was duplicated by Mr. Minier as evidenced by his billings of 22.9 hours and Mr. Ringstad as evidenced by his billings of 11.6 hours working on the same motion. In total, three attorneys spent allegedly spent 105.6 hours on preparing a motion which consisted of approximately eighteen pages. That is clearly unreasonable! Mr. Ringstad has been an attorney for thirty four years. Mr. Nelson has been an attorney for over four years. Mr. Minier has been attorney for eighteen years. It does not take three attorneys with over fifty six years combined experience 105.6 hours to draft eighteen pages!
To give another example, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Minier and Mr. Ringstad spent 32.5 hours in connection with the mediation, e.g., scheduling and rescheduling the mediation. An assistant can arrange a mediation. There is no need for an attorney with eighteen years experience (Mr. Minier) to schedule and reschedule a mediation at the cost of $375 per hour. On top of that, both Mr. Minier and Mr. Ringstad allegedly spent numerous hours in connection with "settlement status" and "settlement discussions."
As to the trial preparation, Mr. Minier spent over 200 hours. Mr. Nelson spent over 50 hours and then Mr. Ringstad stepped in and spent in excess of 40 hours. Mr. Ringstad spent a substantial amount of time duplicating time already spent. Mr. Minier spent the most amount of time preparing for the trial and then Mr. Ringstad spent for example 10.50 [hours] on December 17, 2014 reviewing the declarations and exhibit[s] that Mr. Minier had already prepared and reviewed.
As the examples set forth above demonstrate, Dowent's counsels duplicated each other's work and spent clearly excessive and unreasonable amount of time in connection with this action
In its supplemental opposition, Efpar also renewed its objection to Debtor's fee motion that the amount of attorneys' fees is unreasonable. Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 16-18. Efpar also submitted a detailed analysis of the billing statements submitted by R&S in support of Debtor's fee motion. Id. and Exhibit A attached thereto.
Efpar stated in its supplemental opposition regarding the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees claimed by Debtor as follows:
The Court recognized in its order for further briefing that it would be extremely difficult to analyze the information submitted by Debtor's counsel in support of its claims for fees. Nevertheless, Efpar's counsel has conducted a
detailed analysis of the billing exhibit submitted by Dowent in the following manner.
First, Dowent's counsel's billing exhibit was entered into a worksheet which incorporated the date of service, the initials of the attorney providing the service, a description of the service, the type [sic] [i.e., time] expended, the hourly rate and the total fees.
Second, the worksheet was then extended to provide four separate categories for the purpose of recording billing items as to which Efpar contends the amounts are unreasonable and should not be awarded under any circumstances.
The four categories consist first of the pre-objection fees which are not recoverable [under] either state or federal law. Attorneys' fees in litigation do not commence until the litigation commences. Pre-litigation activities, however extensive, are not recoverable under Civ. Code § 1717. In this case, Efpar's claim remained presumptively valid from the date it was filed which was April 12, 2013 until the filing of the objection which was April 8, 2014. It is indicative of the degree of the overreach by Dowent's counsel that it has sought to recover in excess of $47,000 of fees incurred prior to the date of notice of rejection of the claim.
The second category of objectionable fees involves the duplication of effort in which Dowent's counsel is utilizing three different attorneys to perform duplicative work. In particular, the bulk of the case was prepared by attorney Chris Minier. His efforts included the duplication of work by attorney Bryan Nelson. Mr. Minier's billings were $137,625. Mr. Nelson's billings were $57,150. Both of these individuals had their work supervised, corrected and in some cases redone by attorney Todd Ringstad.
For purposes of Efpar's analysis, certain clearly duplicative efforts have been placed in the column entitled "Duplication of Effort Fees Not Recoverable". Included in this column are numerous communications with attorney Roger Hsu who was personal counsel for Michelle Orh. Mr. Hsu had a definite conflict of interest with Dowent in that Dowent's obligation was to creditors while Mr. Hsu's obligation was to the equity owners of Dowent. It was inappropriate and unreasonable for Dowent's counsel to have repeatedly and continuously involved Mr. Hsu and his associates in developing the strategy for this case.
The third category are fees incurred in connection with the unsuccessful assertion of complete forfeiture by Efpar of its earnest money deposit of $100,000 based on the various theories intended to invalidate the contract which were presumptively abandoned on the first day of the trial and then reasserted during the trial in the form of claims for impossibility, mutual mistake, etc.
The final category is excessive time incurred by assigning counsel inexperienced in real estate litigation. This category includes in particular various
research projects and work undertaken by attorney Mr. Nelson which by its description discloses a distinct lack of experience and would have been totally unnecessary had the case been assigned to a single attorney such as Mr. Minier to conduct the litigation from beginning to end. Alternatively, Mr. Ringstad could have conducted the litigation from beginning to end and even at his higher billing rate, the time necessary to process the case would have been significantly decreased.Supplemental Opposition at 16-18.
At the conclusion of the analysis, there are two additional discount factors which should be applied in determining the actual reasonable amount of fees incurred by Dowent's counsel. One is a blanket ten percent of net billing after the previous deductions for the time invested in the preparation of documents relating to unsuccessful defenses and claims with respect to breach of contract and the refund of the earnest money deposit.
Finally, a thirty percent deduction is applied based on an analysis of the manner in which this case was handled by Dowent's counsel. The Court will note from the worksheet and the exhibit provided by Efpar's counsel that on most days an individual would bill multiple distinct activities in six minute increments. Any experienced lawyer knows that dealing with a case in distinct six minute increments involves at least a thirty percent waste of time. This occurs either because six minutes is the minimum allowable increment, i.e., 0.1 hours so that any item handled between thirty seconds and six minutes is billed six minutes. Each time an item is started and stopped, there is a considerable waste of time which is unreasonable and could be avoided by proper focus on all tasks related to a particular case at the same time.
It is not a mere coincidence that the net billable cost incurred by Efpar's counsel is approximately the same as ultimately determined to be reasonable for Dowent's counsel. Had Dowent's counsel simply assigned this case to Mr. Minier and allowed him to try it, without interference from attorney Mr. Hsu or duplication of efforts from Mr. Ringstad and Mr. Nelson, the fees incurred by both sides would have been virtually identical. It is unreasonable under any circumstances to charge a litigant for attorneys' fees incurred in a law firm structure which encourages duplication of effort and attempts to bill for what is effectively the training of inexperienced counsel.
Submitted concurrently herewith is the declaration of Saul Reiss which sets forth the analysis referred to above and attached as the worksheet.
As stated above, the court has quoted at length and verbatim Efpar's arguments in its original and supplemental oppositions to Debtor's fee motion why the attorneys' fees claimed by Debtor are unreasonable, excessive and/or unnecessarily incurred. As discussed herein, the court determines that Efpar's arguments deserve serious consideration, although the court does not agree with all of its arguments and will determine that not all of its arguments are meritorious. The court agrees with Efpar that some but not all of the attorneys' fees claimed by Debtor are unreasonable, excessive and/or unnecessarily incurred. The issue is how much is reasonable and how much is not.
The court reviewed each and every billing and cost entry set forth in the billing statements of R&S submitted in support of Debtor's Fee Motion and the Bill of Costs. The court's examination of every billing and cost entry in the Fee Motion and the Bill of Costs was labor-intensive and time-consuming because the entries are voluminous, 85 pages with 10 to 15 billing entries per page, and the court had to analyze each task performed to determine the reasonableness of fee claimed for the task in the light of the nature of the task and the time spent on the task as well as the identity of the professional performing the task, particularly where multiple attorneys as was frequently the situation here worked on the same task. The court determined that it was required to go to this level of detail because that is the expectation put upon a trial court to review an application for an award of attorneys' fees. As stated by the Ninth Circuit, trial courts "must show their work when calculating [such awards]," Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013), and a trial "court acts within its discretion in awarding fees when the amount is reasonable and the court fully explains its reasoning in making the award." McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009); see also, Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 738 F.3d 214, 227 (9th Cir. 2013) (M. Smith, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In order to analyze whether the claimed professional fees are reasonable, the court reviewed the billing entries of R&S set forth in exhibits to the Supplemental Brief of Debtor in Support of its Reply Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Debtor's Supplemental Reply"), ECF 432, because the Supplemental Reply categorized the services provided by R&S based on related tasks and listed the services in each category in a separate exhibit, Exhibits 2 through 12. Specifically, the Supplemental Reply broke down the time spent and billed into the following categories, which also lists the exhibit number for each category. The following table sets forth how much time each R&S attorney billed for services in each fee category set forth in Debtor's Supplemental Reply:
| Fee Categories | Total FeesBilled | TotalHoursBilled | BN Hoursat$300/hr | CAM Hoursat $375/hr | TR Hoursat$625/hr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investigation of Efpar's Claim,Obtaining and Reviewing DocumentsPertaining to the Claim, andResearching Legal Issues Bearing onthe Validity of the Claim (Ex.2) | $28,395.00 | 83.8 | 48.4 | 33 | 2.4 |
| Drafting of Debtor's Motion for anOrder Disallowing Efpar's Claim andRelated Documents (Ex. 3) | $16,797.50 | 42.1 | 28.2 | 1.4 | 12.5 |
| Efpar's Opposition to Debtor's ClaimObjection, Debtor's Reply and theHearing (Ex.4) | $14,230.00 | 35.3 | 2.1 | 28.6 | 4.6 |
| Mediation (Ex. 5) | $19,507.50 | 41.3 | 4.4 | 19.5 | 17.4 |
| Pre-Trial Preparation (Ex. 6) | $36,860.00 | 93.1 | 5.2 | 76.9 | 11 |
| Discovery (Ex. 7) | $37,327.50 | 98.2 | 0.3 | 93.1 | 4.8 |
| Preparation of Debtor's TrialDeclarations (Ex. 8) | $10,687.50 | 26.7 | 0 | 24 | 2.7 |
| Preparation of Debtor's Trial Brief andRelated matters (Ex. 9) | $21,027.50 | 55.5 | 27.8 | 18.5 | 9.2 |
| Motions in Limine (Ex. 10) | $8,067.50 | 21.6 | 12.1 | 6 | 3.5 |
| Attending Trial, Preparing Objectionsto Efpar's Trial Declarations andExhibits, and Related Matters (Ex. 11) | $59,112.50 | 112.9 | 13 | 28.9 | 71 |
| Post-Trial Matters (Ex. 12) | $39,987.50 | 104.2 | 52.5 | 32.3 | 19.4 |
| Total Fees | $292,000.00 |
After the court conducted its independent review of the billing entries for R&S's services as counsel for Debtor, the court found that not all the claimed fees are reasonable and that the billing entries raised several areas of general concern, which include the following: the time spent was excessive for the tasks performed; the performance by attorneys of services which were secretarial in nature or otherwise part of R&S's overhead; vagueness of some billing entries, which do not allow the court to determine the reasonableness of the work performed; and multiple attorneys working on the same tasks resulting in excessive time spent for the tasks performed. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (2001) ("In referring to 'reasonable' compensation, we indicated that trial courts must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended; 'padding' in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.") (emphasis in original), citing, Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (1977); In re Macke International Trade, Inc., 370 B.R. 236, 254 (9th Cir. BAP 2007), quoting, Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 390 F.3d 1139, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[E]ven where evidence supports [that] a particular number of hours [were] worked, the court may give credit for fewer hours if the time claimed is 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'"); Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1324-1326 (2008), citing, ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020 (2001) (the court may disallow attorneys' fees when the billing entries are vague and do not allow the court to determine the reasonableness of the work performed).
Before discussing the specific details of the reasonableness of the fees claimed by Debtor for the services of its counsel, R&S, the court has general comments about the nature of the litigation between the parties as context for the court's consideration of the Fee Motion. The contested matter of the Claim Disallowance Motion, the underlying litigation for the Fee Motion and Bills of Costs, was in this court's view a straightforward, or in Efpar's word, simple, contractual dispute between the parties, raising two separate disputes. First, whether Debtor breached the real estate purchase and sale agreement where it agreed to sell the subject property to Efpar, and the fact of the breach is not in serious dispute, and second, what was the measure of damages suffered by Efpar for breach of contract, that is, specifically, for loss of benefit of bargain, lost profits, and other miscellaneous forms of contract damages, which are relatively straightforward, and simple. An examination of the pleadings in this matter, consisting of Efpar's proof of claim with a copy of its state court complaint attached, Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim, Efpar's opposition to the motion, and the parties' joint pretrial stipulation, bears this out.
A clear example of the simple and straightforward nature of this contested matter is set forth in the parties' joint pretrial stipulation, ECF 325. In the joint pretrial stipulation, the parties agreed to numerous facts regarding contract negotiation, contract formation, contract performance and breach as stated in Paragraphs 1 through 51. Id. at 1-12. The only disputed issues of fact listed by the parties as remaining to be litigated were in Paragraphs 52 through 56: (1) whether Efpar informed Debtor of the existence of the Dollar Tree lease; (2) what was the value of the property as of the date of Debtor's alleged breach to determine Efpar's claim for damages based on the difference between the price agreed to be paid and the value of the property at the time of the breach; (3) whether Efpar gave notice to the escrow and/or Debtor that it disapproved of estoppel certificates for two tenants; (4) what were the terms of loan financing provided by SR Capital to Efpar to acquire the property; and (5) was Efpar's claim for damages from liability to SR Capital of $209,270.83 for a loan commitment fee and 30 days minimum interest a postpetition obligation not includible in its prepetition claim. Id. at 12-13. These factual issues primarily relate to the amount of damages for Debtor's breach of contract and to a relatively minor issue of whether Efpar gave notice of breach regarding tenant estoppel certificates.
The only disputed issues of law listed by the parties in the joint pretrial stipulation as remaining to be litigated were in Paragraphs 58 through 66: (1) whether Debtor's executed notice of cancellation terminated Efpar's contract for purchase of the property; (2) whether Efpar is entitled to a claim for its first $50,000 deposit if Debtor rightfully cancelled the sale; (3) whether if the contract was terminated, the Second Amendment to the contract was void and ineffective due to mutual mistake of the parties that the contract had not been terminated; (4) whether Efpar is entitled to a claim for its second $50,000 deposit made pursuant to the Second Amendment to the contract due to mutual mistake of the parties that the contract had not been terminated; (5) whether Efpar was ready, willing and able to perform and conclude the purchase of the property but for Debtor's alleged breach; (6) what is the proper measure of Efpar's damages for breach of contract, specifically, whether the Dollar Tree Lease was within the fair contemplation of the parties to be considered "loss of bargain" damages; (7) whether Efpar's claim for damages for an increase of value based on the Dollar Tree Lease was reasonably foreseeable by Debtor and/or reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting; (8) whether Efpar's claim for damages of $209,270.83 for the loan commitment fee and 30 days minimum interest charged by SR Capital was reasonably foreseeable by Debtor and/or reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting; and (9) whether Efpar's claim for damages of $65,500 for the value of the services of Efpar's principals, Farid Efraim and Keith Parry, expended in its efforts to acquire the property and billed at $250 per hour constitutes recoverable damages under applicable law. These legal issues relate to primarily what was the amount of damages for Debtor's breach of contract and to Debtor's defense of contract termination to Efpar's claim of breach of contract. Id. at 13-15.
It might be said that Debtor made the litigation more complex, perhaps unnecessarily so as argued by Efpar, by raising and litigating defenses of contract termination and contract impossibility, which were not only unsuccessful, but somewhat weak to begin with. The merits of the litigation are described in the court's Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision.
The existence of Debtor's breach of contract with Efpar was simple, straightforward and not in serious dispute. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 15-17. The parties entered into three separate contract agreements, the original Sales Agreement, the Addendum and the Second Amendment, the execution of which by the parties was not contested. Id. Debtor's breach of its contract based on its unjustified or unexcused failure to perform was not seriously disputed. Id. at 17-21. The breach of contract occurred when Debtor failed to convey the subject real property to Efpar by the date agreed upon by the parties in the Second Amendment contract document. Id. Thus, in the court's view, the existence of Debtor's breach of contract was simple and straightforward.
Debtor made the issue of breach of contract more complex than it should have been by raising two weak arguments that the contract was terminated rather than breached and that it was impossible for it to have breached the contract. Debtor's contract termination defense lacked factual support because Debtor failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that it met the terms of the contract to terminate it. Debtor's contract impossibility defense lacked legal support as the case law did not support that its argument that the lis pendens of the competing buyer, a private litigant, made it impossible for it to perform under the contract. Id. at 38-44. Neither of these defenses presented a difficulty to resolve in terms of professional time and effort to needed to litigate the defenses. Just because Debtor thinks these defenses presented complex issues needing extensive attorney time to investigate, research and consult does not make it so. See In re Macke International Trade, Inc., 370 B.R. at 254.
Regarding contractual breach, Efpar made the date of the breach an issue by arguing for an alternative date based on the rejection of the contract for bankruptcy purposes. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 19. While Debtor had to address and refute this argument, this presented a straightforward issue of law, which did not demand much litigation effort of the parties in terms of the need for extensive factual development or legal analysis. Id.
The main dispute between the parties arising from Debtor's Claim Disallowance Motion was over the amount of consequential damages from the Debtor's contract breach under California Civil Code § 3306. The court concluded that Efpar did not meet its burden of proving the amount of $2,160,000 in consequential damages it claimed it suffered in losing the benefit of its bargain. However, that litigation of Debtor's Claim Disallowance Motion resulted in substantially reducing Efpar's claim of damages to a relatively modest amount of $130,000, of which $25,000 was attributable to loss of bargain damages, does not warrant all of the claimed professional fees because the issues in controversy regarding damages were straightforward and not complex or difficult. Efpar's claim for consequential damages from Debtor's contractual breach was primarily an issue of valuation of the subject property, which was a credibility contest between the valuation witnesses of the parties.
Efpar offered valuation testimony from two witnesses, Brandon Michaels, a real estate salesperson, and its principal, Farid Efraim, and Debtor offered valuation testimony from a licensed appraiser, Bradley E. Lofgren, MAI. The valuation testimony of Efpar's witnesses was based on the factual premise that it as the prospective owner of the property could lease out the property to a specific commercial tenant, Dollar Tree, a well-known chain discount retailer, but this premise was not valid because such a lease out to Dollar Tree was only a hypothetical contingency and was not within the contemplation of the parties, namely, Debtor, and thus, was not a proper basis for valuing the subject property. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 23-27.
Aside from this improper factual premise, the court did not accord much weight to the testimony of Efpar's valuation witnesses. The testimony of Mr. Michaels lacked credibility because although he was a real estate professional as a real estate sales agent, he had no experience and training to appraise property, did not personally inspect the property, and spent no more than one hour preparing his valuation opinion, which reflected a minimal foundation for his testimony. Mr. Efraim, Efpar's principal, offered testimony not sufficiently based on the facts and on scientifically accepted valuation principles and methods to be admissible. Id. at 23-24. The court also had reason to discount the value of Mr. Efraim's testimony because he was self-interested as the principal of Efpar.
The court gave greater weight to Debtor's valuation witness, Mr. Lofgren, because he was a licensed real property appraiser with more than 20 years of real estate valuation experience, made a physical inspection of the property and based his analysis upon scientifically accepted valuation principles. Id. at 25-27. Thus, the court determines that since litigation of the primary issue in this case relating to the valuation of Efpar's consequential damages issue related to valuation of the subject property, the litigation of this issue was very straightforward, and would not have taken much time and effort in discovery or to prepare for trial as claimed for R&S's services, especially given the weakness of the evidentiary presentation of Efpar's valuation witnesses.
Efpar made a similar argument to its loss of bargain damages in the form of alleging lost profits based on the same improper premise of the hypothetical contingency lease to Dollar Tree. While the amount of lost profits of $1,570,391 alleged by Efpar was large, the analysis of Efpar's lost profits issue was essentially the same as the loss of bargain issue, and similarly resolved, and did not require substantially more litigation time or effort.
Efpar also asserted a claim for damages from the lost time for services of its principals in conducting due diligence for the Sale Agreement with Debtor and for its out of pocket expenditures for services of third-party contractors in conducting due diligence, such as physical inspection and onsite testing of the subject property, and the court allowed some of these claimed damages, but disallowed most of them. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 31-38. These claims for damages were minor claims because they were for small amounts, and the issues presented were straightforward and resolved based on a determination of whether Efpar could meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such expenditures were necessary and foreseeable. For the most part, Efpar was not able to meet this burden because such claims were based on Efpar's improper factual premise that it could lease out the property to Dollar Tree. Id. In the court's view, the litigation of these minor expenses regarding the necessity and foreseeability of Efpar's contract-related expenditures presented simple factual and legal issues which did not require much litigation time and effort by Debtor's professionals at R&S.
As discussed in detail below, in the court's view, while Debtor is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party in this case, the amount of allowable fees and costs must be reasonable. The overall amount of the attorneys' fees claimed by Debtor for services performed by its counsel, R&S, is excessive and unreasonable, and needs to be reduced in light of the nature of the litigation on the Claim Disallowance Motion. The issues were straightforward, simple, not complex and did not warrant the time spent by counsel on these issues, and in large part, the excessive billing here was due to attorney overstaffing of the case, resulting in the duplication of services by multiple attorneys, the performance of unnecessary and/or nonbillable work, such as work performed disproportionate to the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, attorneys performing administrative, non-lawyer tasks, or performing basic legal research by a relatively inexperienced associate. In these respects, the court agrees with Efpar's arguments generally, but not entirely. Since Debtor was the prevailing party in this litigation of the parties' contractual dispute over Debtor's breach of the Sale Agreement, Debtor is entitled under the Sale Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717 to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. What is not reasonable is excessive.
As stated under the terms of the Sale Agreement, "The attorneys' fees award . . . shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys' fees reasonably incurred." See Fee Motion, ECF 410 at 26, Exhibit 1, Sale Agreement, ¶16. The Sale Agreement does not define "reasonably." Nonetheless, in California, the trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable attorneys' fee award. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (2000). California Civil Code § 1717 provides that "[r]easonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court." PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th at 1094. "[T]his requirement reflects the legislative purpose 'to establish uniform treatment of fee recoveries in actions on contracts containing attorney fee provisions.' Id., citing and quoting, Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th at 616.
"Consistent with that purpose, the trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee." Id., citing, International Industries, Inc. v. Olen, 21 Cal.3d 218, 224 (1978) ("[E]quitable considerations [under Civil Code section 1717]] must prevail over ... the technical rules of contractual construction."); Beverly Hills Properties v. Marcolino, 270 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 12, 270 Cal.Rptr. 605 (1990) ("the award of attorney fees under section 1717, as its purposes indicate, is governed by equitable principles"); Montgomery v. Bio-Med Specialties, Inc., 183 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1297 (1986) (trial court has "wide latitude in determining the amount of an award of attorney's fees" under Civil Code section 1717); Vella v. Hudgins, 151 Cal.App.3d 515, 522 (1984) ("The amount to be awarded in attorney's fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court."). "The 'experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong' — meaning that it abused its discretion." PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th at 1095, citing and quoting, Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (1977); Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 228 (1980) (an appellate court will interfere with a determination of reasonable attorney fees "only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion").
A "fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate." Id.; see also, 3 Jones, Rosen, Wegner & Jones, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, ¶ 19:312 at 19-57 (2017), citing inter alia, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-437 (1983). "[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award." Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th at 1132, citing, Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d at 49. The party seeking attorney fees bears the burden to prove that the fees it seeks are reasonable. Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 98 (2009); see also, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(c)(5) (the moving party bears the burden of proof on any claim for attorneys' fees for actions on a contract not based on the court's established fee schedule). In Ketchum v. Moses, the California Supreme Court also observed "[i]n referring to 'reasonable' compensation, we indicated that trial courts must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended; 'padding' in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation." Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th at 1132 (emphasis in original), citing, Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d at 48.
EFPAR'S OBJECTIONS TO FEES
Efpar in its original opposition argued: "The said fees were unnecessarily incurred and are clearly unreasonable. . . . This action involved a simple claim. There were few witnesses in a short two day trial. There was no need for three attorneys to work on such a simple case. Furthermore, this action did not require over 755 hours of attorney services. . . ." Efpar's Opposition to Debtor's Fee Motion, ECF 416 at 16. The court agrees with this general statement by Efpar that this case involved a simple contract claim that did not require three attorneys to work on such a simple case and did not require over 755 hours of attorney services. However, Efpar acknowledges that at least, one attorney would have been justified to work on this simple contract dispute case. Thus, implicitly, Efpar would acknowledge if fees were to be awarded, it would have to be in a reasonable amount. The issue before the court is what amount of fees would be reasonable. Efpar in its supplemental opposition offered specific methodology in analyzing the fee billing statements submitted by R&S on behalf of Debtor: (1) disallowing entirely $47,680.00 in fees for work performed before the date of the notice of rejection of the claim (i.e., Debtor's Claim Disallowance Motion); (2) disallowance of fees of $54,711.33 incurred for work involving duplication of effort based on specific objections to billing entries set forth in a chart attached to Efpar's Supplemental Opposition; (3) disallowance of fees of $16,180.00 incurred for work involving unsuccessful claims for complete forfeiture of Efpar's $100,000 deposit money; (4) disallowance of fees of $6,920.00 incurred for work performed by counsel inexperienced in real estate litigation; (5) discounting net fees after deducting for categories (1), (2), (3) and (4) above by 10 percent for work performed in preparing documents relating to unsuccessful defenses and claims with respect to breach of contract and refund of Efpar's earnest money deposit, resulting in disallowance of fees of $17,254.33; and (6) discounting net fees after deducting for categories (1), (2), (3) and (4) above by 30 percent for inefficiencies in billing in six minute increments by Debtor's counsel resulting in disallowance of fees of $51,762.98. Supplemental Opposition at 16-18 and Exhibit A attached thereto.
The court does not agree with the precise methodology offered by Efpar in reducing Debtor's fee claim to a reasonable amount, but the court determines that the concerns behind the methodology have merit and deserve serious consideration. As discussed previously, the court determines that fees to Debtor's counsel should not be disallowed on grounds that it was for "prelitigation" services since the work in dispute was performed after Efpar filed its proof of claim and is not considered "prelitigation." The court does not adopt Efpar's analysis to disallow fees for specific billing entries as indicative of duplication of effort, but agrees with its argument generally that there was duplication of effort involved here as discussed in this memorandum decision. The court does not adopt Efpar's analysis to disallow fees for specific billing entries for work relating to Debtor's unsuccessful claims for complete forfeiture of Efpar's earnest money deposit because the court agrees with Debtor that fees may be allowed for services relating to unsuccessful claims and defenses, but that such fees must be reasonable. The court does not adopt Efpar's analysis to disallow fees based on the theory of inherent overstatement of attorney time billed in six minute increments since the court in its rules authorizes and requires counsel to bill for time in which services are performed in tenths of an hour, or six minute increments, and Efpar's theory is not supported by admissible and credible evidence. See Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016-1(a)(1)(E)(iii).
The court now addresses the reasonableness of the fees based on each category set forth in the exhibits to Debtor's Supplemental Brief, ECF 432. In evaluating the reasonableness of the claimed fees, the court examined each billing statement provided by R&S on behalf of Debtor and categorized each billing entry by task. The court's categorization for each billing entry for each task listed below can be found in Exhibit A attached to this memorandum decision.
Debtor in its application grouped R&S's billing entries for the work the firm performed in litigating Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim into 11 separate task categories as indicated in Exhibits 2 through 12 to Debtor's Supplemental Reply. Breaking down the billing entries into 11 separate task categories was apparently to address Efpar's argument that this was a simple case which did not require over 755 hours of attorney services, though Debtor in its reply papers to Efpar's opposition papers does not directly address the merits of Efpar's argument that this was a simple case that did not require 755 hours of billable attorney time. Debtor's Supplemental Reply at 19- 30. Debtor's response to Efpar's argument was indirect, focusing on the numerous tasks performed by R&S in this case. Id. That is, Debtor's response was to describe the number of tasks performed by R&S and did not discuss the nature of the case as argued by Efpar that this was a simple contract case. Separating the billing entries of R&S into 11 separate task categories makes each category seem less expensive and more reasonable in appearance. As discussed below, the court cannot find that Debtor's response focusing on the numerous tasks performed is completely satisfactory as the analysis should be not how many tasks were performed, but how many tasks performed were reasonably necessary. This is not fully explained by Debtor, and in the court's analysis, not all of the work performed was reasonably necessary.
The court in its analysis of R&S's billing entries examines each of R&S's 11 separate task categories as discussed below. In analyzing R&S's 11 separate task categories, the court also breaks these down into subcategories as well as looking at individual billing entries in its analysis. Moreover, the court believes that it is useful to consider the work performed by R&S in three phases of litigation: (1) the law and motion phase; (2) the pretrial litigation phase; and (3) the trial phase.
LAW AND MOTION PHASE OF LITIGATION
The law and motion phase of this litigation consisted of Debtor's prefiling investigation, the preparation of its motion objecting to Efpar's claim and related pleadings and the appearance and argument at the hearing on the motion and encompasses the billing entries in Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 to Debtor's Supplemental Reply. The total fees and hours billed by R&S for the law and motion phase consisting of prefiling investigation, preparation of motion pleadings, and appearance and argument at the hearing on the motion were $59,422.50 and 161.2 hours of services. By attorney, this breaks down to $23,610.00 in fees for 78.7 hours of service by Mr. Nelson at $300.00 per hour, $23,625.00 in fees for 63 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour, and $12,187.50 in fees for 19.5 hours of service by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour.
Efpar asserted specific objections to the law and motion phase of the litigation. In its original opposition, Efpar argued that it was "clearly unreasonable" that "[i]n total, three attorneys allegedly spent 105.6 hours on preparing a motion which consisted of approximately eighteen pages." Efpar's Opposition to Debtor's Fee Motion, ECF 416 at 16. In its supplemental opposition, Efpar argues that fees in this category should not be allowed because fees for pre-objection (i.e., prelitigation) work are not recoverable under state or federal law, such fees involve the duplication of effort in which Debtor is utilizing three different attorneys to perform duplicative work, fees should not be allowed for work on Debtor's unsuccessful assertion of complete forfeiture by Efpar of its earnest money deposit of $100,000, and fees should not be allowed for work performed by counsel inexperienced in real estate litigation (i.e., by Attorney Nelson). Efpar's Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 16-19. On the chart analysis by Efpar's counsel attached to the Supplemental Opposition, Efpar objected to fees for services incurred in reviewing and analyzing the transcript of the deposition of David Zander, the other buyer of Debtor's real property and another claimant of Debtor's, and for services incurred regarding objections to multiple claims of Efpar and other claimants without allocation between these claimants as not necessary to the litigation of Debtor's objection to Efpar's claim. Id. and Exhibit A attached thereto.
In the reply to the opposition, Debtor responded to Efpar's argument, claiming that the 105.6 hours allegedly spent on preparing the 18-page motion objecting to Efpar's claim was clearly reasonable, stating that much of the time billed from January 7, 2014 through April 8, 2014 was for investigation and analysis of the underlying facts and legal research, consistent with R&S's duty under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 that its pleading was reasonably based in fact and law and only 42.1 hours incurring fees of $16,797.50 was the time actually spent working on the motion objecting to claim. Reply, ECF 417 at 12. Debtor stated that the work performed by R&S consisted of "undert[aking] a thorough investigation of the underlying facts, which required analysis of competing real estate purchase contracts, review of deposition transcripts, review of state court pleadings, and discussions with Debtor's principals and attorneys, as well as significant legal research before making the determination to file an objection to the Claim." Id. Debtor elaborated on the need for "significant amount of time" for investigation and legal research here as R&S "understood that the Claim Objection would lead to the instant contested matter, and that resolution of this contested matter would have an enormous impact on the Debtor's bankruptcy case, and would determine the amount distributed to creditors and the amount remaining for the Debtor's principals, if any." Id. at 12-13. Thus, according to Debtor, "the Claim Objection herein was akin to a complaint", and "[i]t would not seem unusual for a plaintiff's firm to spend a significant amount of time doing factual investigation and legal research prior to filing a complaint, even if the complaint was 'only' 18 pages (the length of the Claim Objection herein)." Id. at 12-13.
As to Efpar's argument that Debtor's counsel performed duplicative services, in the reply to the opposition, Debtor argued that "[t]here was no duplication of efforts or rebilling of time" in that R&S "divvied up" the work among the attorneys to "ensure[] that less expensive attorneys handle as much of matters as possible, with more expensive attorneys handling tasks that require greater skill and experience." Id. Specifically, in this case, Debtor stated that "Mr. Nelson did most of the legal research and drafted much of the initial pleadings, Mr. Minier did some of the legal research and most of the factual investigation, oversaw and directed Mr. Nelson's research and drafting, handled most of the discussions and negotiations with opposing counsel, and attended most of the hearings, and Mr. Ringstad supervised the effort, assigned research and writing tasks, and handled the trial." Id. at 11.
In response to Efpar's argument that fees should not be allowed for the work of inexperienced counsel, Debtor in its supplemental reply to the opposition stated that the work assigned to the less experienced attorney was entirely appropriate because the matters assigned to that attorney were relatively routine matters which could be handled by an attorney with a lower billing rate and that the relatively small amount of fees of $6,920.00 objected to by Efpar specifically for this reason is justified on this basis. Supplemental Reply at 16-18.
Efpar argues that Debtor cannot recover for fees incurred for "prelitigation" work performed by its counsel before Debtor filed its motion objecting to Efpar's claim. Supplemental Opposition, ECF 427 at 17. Citing In re Brosio, 505 B.R. 903, 912-913 (9th Cir. BAP 2014). Debtor argues that case law in this circuit recognizes that work performed by counsel to object to a claim after a proof of claim is filed is not "prelitgation" because a proof of claim filed by a creditor is analogous to filing a complaint in the bankruptcy case. Supplemental Reply, ECF 432 at 12-14. Therefore, Debtor argues that Efpar's objection to Debtor's claim for fees by its counsel for so-called "prelitigation" work should be denied because such work was after Efpar filed its proof of claim and cannot be considered "prelitigation."
The court has considered the competing arguments of the parties regarding the law and motion phase of the litigation. The court agrees in part and disagrees in part with Efpar's arguments, and agrees in part and disagrees in part with Debtor's arguments. As to Efpar's argument that it was "clearly unreasonable" that "[i]n total, three attorneys spent allegedly spent 105.6 hours on preparing a motion which consisted of approximately eighteen pages", the court agrees with this argument in substance for the reasons that it will explain. However, the court does not entirely agree with Efpar's specific arguments that fees in this category should not be allowed because fees for pre-objection (i.e., prelitigation) work are not recoverable under state or federal law, such fees involve the duplication of effort in which Debtor is utilizing three different attorneys to perform duplicative work, fees should not be allowed for work on Debtor's unsuccessful assertion of complete forfeiture by Efpar of its earnest money deposit of $100,000, and fees should not be allowed for work performed by counsel inexperienced in real estate litigation (i.e., by Attorney Nelson). The court agrees with Debtor that Efpar's objection that none of fees incurred for "prelitigation" work before Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim is allowable under state or federal law should be overruled because the work performed by Debtor's counsel was after Efpar filed its proof of claim, which is analogous to the filing of a complaint in the bankruptcy case, and thus not "prelitigation" and not disallowed on that basis as recognized in the case law. In re Brosio, supra. Debtor's argument that it did not just spend 105.6 hours as argued by Efpar, or 161.2 hours in the law and motion phase of this litigation, on writing an 18-page motion objecting to Efpar's claim, but also, conducting a factual investigation of the claim and related legal research, misses the point of whether such amount of time was reasonably necessary. The court cannot find that 161.2 hours and $59,422.50 in fees were reasonably necessary to spend on not just writing the 18-page motion, but in the factual investigation and related legal research. That so much time resulted in an 18-page motion is indicative that the time spent was not reasonably necessary.
Referring back to Efpar's general argument that "[t]his action involved a simple claim" and "[t]here was no need for three attorneys to work on such a simple case," the court notes that Efpar did not elaborate in its opposition papers why this was a simple case involving a simple claim. It seems that Efpar considered its general observation that this was a simple case involving a simple claim to be obvious. Perhaps this is not as obvious as the court noted earlier since Debtor never addresses this general argument directly, that is, rather, Debtor's indirect argument in response was that its counsel did a lot of work as described and listed in its papers.
Debtor's defense of the fees billed in the law and motion phase of the litigation is set forth in the Supplemental Reply at 19-21 and Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 thereto discussing the first three of eleven of Debtor's fee categories: (1) the investigation of Efpar's claim, obtaining and reviewing documents pertaining to the claim and research legal issues bearing on the validity of the claim (totaling 83.8 hours and $28,395.00 in fees); (2) the drafting of the Debtor's motion for an order disallowing Efpar's claim and related documents (totaling 42.1 hours and $16,797.50 in fees); and (3) Efpar's opposition to the Debtor's claim objection, the Debtor's reply and the Hearing (totaling 25.3 hours and $14,230.00 in fees).
Debtor's justification of the time spent by its lawyers was set forth in the listing of the tasks performed by them in these categories:
Category 1 (Investigation of Efpar's Claim): analyzing Efpar's proof of claim and attached documents; communicating with Debtor's principals regarding Efpar's claim, the implication of the allowance or disallowance of the claim, the legal theories on which the claim and Debtor's objection depended, and obtaining documents relevant to the claim and Debtor's anticipated objection; researching the proper measure of damages under California law for breach of contract to sell real property and preparation of a memorandum of law regarding this issue, engaging in ongoing telephone and email communications with Efpar's counsel regarding the validity of Efpar's claim, the damages asserted by Efpar, various legal theories being asserted by both parties related to the claim and settlement possibilities; researching the case law and statutory authority regarding the numerous legal issues involved or potentially involved, in determining the validity or invalidity of damages being sought, and preparing the Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim; obtaining and reviewing documents relevant to Efpar's claim and the Debtor's anticipated objection thereto, including all pleadings, discovery requests and responses, and deposition transcripts from the two state court actions initiated by Efpar and David Zander against the Debtor, engaging in ongoing communications with Debtor's special litigation counsel who represented Debtor and its principals in the two prepetition state court actions regarding Efpar's claim, potential defenses to the claim, developing the Debtor's legal theories and strategy regarding preparation of the objection to Efpar's claim and obtaining legal research and relevant documents from special litigation counsel, reviewing lengthy transcripts of the multiday hearing on the Debtor's motion to sell its commercial real property to either Efpar or David Zander regarding ascertaining representations of Efpar concerning the value of the property, preparation of a document binder containing all documents relevant, or potentially relevant, to Efpar's claim and the Debtor's anticipated objection thereto, and researching case law authority previously cited by Efpar in prepetition state court litigation to determine whether the same was relevant to the validity and invalidity of the claim.
Category 2 (Drafting Motion Objecting to Efpar's Claim): drafting of the Debtor's motion for an order disallowing Efpar's claim, and related declaration, commenting "These documents were relatively complex from both a factual and legal standpoint, and involved multiple legal issues and alternative theories for complete or partial disallowance of Efpar's Claim." Supplemental Reply at 20.
Category 3 (Reviewing Efpar's Opposition, Drafting Debtor's Reply and Attending Hearing on Motion): reviewing and responding to Efpar's opposition to the Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim, including "that necessary to research the legal authorities set forth in Efpar's Opposition, as well as additional authority for the preparation of the Debtor's Reply," Supplemental Reply at 21, preparing the Debtor's reply and supporting declaration, and evidentiary objections to the declaration of Efpar's principal, communicating with Debtor's principal regarding the ongoing claim litigation and preparing her declaration in support of Debtor's reply, preparing for and attending the hearing on the objection to Efpar's claim, and preparing a proposed scheduling order.
Debtor's listing of tasks did not set forth a narrative explanation regarding the simplicity or complexity of the factual or legal issues themselves in this matter. Debtor's litany of tasks broken down into many components may make the litigation sound more complex and difficult than it really was, but does not address the lodestar adjustment factors of "the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved" set forth in the case law. Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th at 1132. The court finds it unusual for counsel in this listing of tasks to have broken down the work of drafting a motion, responding to the opposition and appearing at the hearing into three separate categories of work, and it appears that this was done to mask the inordinate amount of time and costs billed for drafting the motion, responding to the opposition and arguing the motion on a simple and straightforward contract matter, that is, it took 161.2 hours of attorney time and cost $59,422.50 in fees to draft a motion that Efpar's contractual claim should be disallowed, asserting that there was no breach of contract because it was terminated or impossible to perform, or if there was a breach, the damages are not as large as Efpar claimed.
In the court's view, having presided over the litigation of this matter to trial, the factual and legal issues presented by Efpar's proof of claim were not difficult, nor complex, but simple and straightforward. Efpar's proof of claim attached a copy of Efpar's state court complaint for breach of contract which laid out the basis of Efpar's contractual claims. The issues raised by Efpar in its proof of claim and the attached state court complaint were simple and straightforward contractual issues regarding: (1) contract formation, i.e., whether there was a contract with Efpar in force; (2) contract breach, i.e., if an enforceable contract existed, whether Debtor breached it; (3) defense to breach of contract, i.e., whether Debtor had defenses to Efpar's breach of contract claims (such as contract termination and impossibility); and (4) contract damages, i.e., if Debtor had no valid defenses to breach of contract, how much were Efpar's damages, if any. These were the issues involved in this contested matter, no matter how many ways Debtor tries to slice and dice them. These contract dispute issues were simple and straightforward as Efpar generally argues, or the court analyzed in its memorandum decision on Debtor's Claim Disallowance Motion and in this decision on Debtor's fee motion. Aside from having presided over this litigation taken to trial, the court also reaches this conclusion because the relevant subject matter, the law of contracts, is taught to lawyers in the first year of the standard law school curriculum, and none of these issues fall outside the first year law school curriculum. The legal research of these issues could not have been that difficult or complex as the issues of contract formation, breach, defenses and damages are adequately covered in standard legal treatises, such as Volume 1 on Contracts of Witkin's Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005 and updated supplements). In this respect, the court agrees with Efpar that this was a simple case about a simple claim.
The Claim Disallowance Motion consisted of 18 pages of argument, a 4 page declaration of Michelle Orh, Debtor's managing member, a 2 page declaration of Christopher A. Minier, an associate attorney with R&S and about 60 pages of exhibits, including copies of the contract documents and Efpar's proof of claim with its state court complaint for breach of contract and exhibits in support thereof. In the Claim Disallowance Motion, Debtor made the following arguments in support of disallowance of Efpar's claim: (1) Efpar's proof of claim lacks sufficient evidentiary support which shifts the burden of proving the validity and amount of the claim to it; (2) the contract was terminated, and the Second Amendment to the contract is void due to a mutual mistake of law; (3) assuming Efpar proves entitlement to damages for breach of contract, damages should be fixed at most, at $75,000, consisting of $25,000 for the difference between Efpar's contract price and fair market value, and $50,000 for return of one of Efpar's two $50,000 deposits; (4) Debtor should be allowed to keep one of Efpar's $50,000 deposits as liquidated damages for Efpar's breach of contract for failure to timely close the contract transaction; (5) Efpar's claim of damages based on the Dollar Tree lease is not allowable because the lease was not within the fair contemplation of the parties; and (6) Efpar is not entitled to damages because it cannot establish that it was ready, willing and able to perform by timely closing the transaction. Claim Disallowance Motion at 10-17. The 4 page declaration of Ms. Orh, Debtor's principal, described the facts regarding Debtor's conduct in forming the contract and performing on the contract. Id. at 19-22. The 2 page declaration of Mr. Minier, an associate attorney with R&S, related to the eventual sale of the subject property in the bankruptcy case. Id. at 23-24. In this category, R&S billed a total of 83.8 hours and charged a total of $28,395.00 in fees. Mr. Nelson billed 48.4 hours, Mr. Minier billed 33 hours, and Mr. Ringstad billed 2.4 hours for services related to the investigation of Efpar's claim up to the actual drafting of Debtor's Motion for an Order Disallowing Efpar's Claim. Such services included analyzing Efpar's proof of claim, communicating with Debtor's principals regarding Efpar's claim, obtaining documents relevant to Efpar's claim and Debtor's anticipated objection, and researching the applicable case law and statutory authority including the proper measure of damages under California for breach of a contract to sell real property.
In order to draft the motion, respond to the motion and argue the motion at the hearing, counsel for Debtor needed to read and analyze the contract documents, consisting of the Sale Agreement, the First Addendum and the Second Addendum, talk to Debtor's principals, and Debtor's state court counsel, regarding discussions between Efpar on contract formation and attempted termination, conduct some basic legal research on contract formation and termination, and draft the motion setting forth Debtor's position on contract formation and termination. Debtor argues that its counsel needed to do much more to investigate extensively, research extensively and consult and communicate extensively, but the court does not believe that. The court cannot find that 161.2 hours of attorney time resulting in $59,422.50 in fees were reasonably necessary to investigate Efpar's breach of contract claim, research and write the motion objecting to the claim and the reply to Efpar's opposition, and argue the motion at the hearing. See In re Macke International Trade, Inc., 370 B.R. at 254 (no abuse of discretion for bankruptcy court to reduce attorneys' fees where the case was "ridiculously overworked").
Given that this motion was not complex and R&S expended 83.8 hours before the motion was drafted, much of which was expended on reviewing documents and researching legal issues, which would have necessarily aided in preparation of the motion to disallow Efpar's Claim, the court determines that it is not only excessive but egregious to bill an additional 42.1 hours in drafting this specific motion. The court notes that the memorandum of points and authorities was only 15 pages long and dealt with the same issues that the firm had already expended an excessive amount of time reviewing and researching.
The court observes that Debtor's reply to Efpar's Opposition did not deal with complicated legal issues. The reply dealt with whether Efpar carried its burden of proof, whether judicial estoppel applies to preclude Debtor from seeking disallowance of Efpar's claim, whether Debtor is entitled to retain Efpar's security deposit (an issue that was addressed in Debtor's Motion), whether loss of bargain damages should be fixed at $75,000 (which was already argued and addressed in Debtor's Motion), and other issues related to consequential damages. Regarding this work, given the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court determines that 27.7 hours is excessive for 4 pages of evidentiary objections and a 21 page reply that dealt with straightforward legal issues. Additionally, the court finds that much of the work and legal argument presented in this pleading was duplicative or unnecessary.
Specifically, it is inefficient to have one associate work on the motion and another associate work on the related reply and at the same time, to bill for the "catch-up" time of the second associate. For example, Mr. Nelson billed 1.8 hours to review and analyze Efpar's opposition, issues pertaining to consequential damages, and sale hearing transcripts, yet only billed 0.3 hours for drafting the reply. Then Mr. Minier, the more senior associate, billed 28.6 hours in this category, including 10.2 hours drafting the reply. It is inefficient and excessive to have Mr. Nelson and Mr. Minier spend 28.2 hours and 1.4 hours, respectively, on tasks related to Debtor's Motion, and then have Mr. Nelson and Mr. Minier spend 2.1 hours and 28.6 hours, respectively, on Debtor's reply to Efpar's opposition to the Motion. The total amount of time is excessive and not reasonably related to the difficulty (or lack thereof) of the legal issues involved, which were simple and straightforward. Arguably, it might be necessary to have different associates splitting up the work on a motion and a reply, but not here, where the second associate attorney apparently has to bill to get up to speed on what the first associate who drafted the motion would have already known. Efpar's opposition to Debtor's motion did not raise any surprising or novel arguments that would have called for the same amount of work for Debtor's reply as its original motion, so the total amount of time spent by both attorneys on the reply was excessive, unreasonable, and duplicative. Therefore, the court will allow only time for one attorney working on the motion and the reply for Debtor to avoid the redundancy of effort for having two attorneys having to work and bill to get up to speed on the matter and will not allow Mr. Nelson's billed time on the motion and reply.
Among the tasks listed for the law and motion phase were extraneous tasks relating to research and review of documents from the state court litigation, such as whether case law cited by Efpar in the state court litigation was applicable, or performance of administrative tasks which could have been performed by a lower cost nonattorney legal assistant, such as preparing document binders. In the court's view, what needed to be done to analyze and object to Efpar's proof of claim were the following tasks: (1) read and analyze the contract documents between Debtor and Efpar, the Sale Agreement, the Addendum and the Second Amendment; (2) conduct legal research relating to contract formation, breach of contract, contract breach defenses and contract damages, which the court considers to be basic and simple legal research; (3) review Efpar's state court breach of contract complaint attached to its proof of claim and check on the status of the state court litigation; (4) interview Debtor's representatives, including prior state court counsel, involved in formation of the contract between Debtor and Efpar (Debtor's bankruptcy counsel had the advantage of a head start consulting with Debtor's prior state court counsel and did not need to "reinvent the wheel" with basic legal research on contract law); (5) write the motion objecting to Efpar's proof of claim; and (6) attend the hearing on the motion. Having reviewed the contract documents and heard the testimony of Debtor's witnesses at trial, the court has an informed understanding of what time would have been reasonably necessary to perform these tasks, and determines that it would have taken 12 hours of attorney time of an experienced attorney like Mr. Minier to read and analyze the contract documents between Debtor and Efpar, the Sale Agreement, the Addendum and the Second Addendum, 8 hours for him to conduct legal research relating to contract formation, breach of contract, contract breach defenses and contract damages, which the court considers to be basic and simple legal research, 4 hours for him to review Efpar's state court breach of contract complaint attached to its proof of claim and review the state court litigation, including checking on status of that litigation, 8 hours for him to correspond and confer with Debtor's representatives, that is, the insiders and Debtor's state court counsel, regarding the factual background of the case (including the circumstances of formation of the contract between Debtor and Efpar and the alleged breach, and the state court litigation), 1 hour to correspond and confer with Efpar's counsel, and 24 hours for him to write the motion objecting to Efpar's proof of claim and the reply to Efpar's opposition, for a total of 57 hours billed by Mr. Minier at $375 per hour, or $21,375 in fees. The court would also allow 6 hours for Mr. Ringstad at $625 per hour, or $3,750 in fees, for supervision of the investigation, research and drafting of the motion (including 0.3 hour for conferring with Efpar's counsel regarding settlement prospects). This would result in 61 hours of attorney time and fees of $25,125 as reasonably necessary to perform the tasks in the law and motion phase of this case.
Fundamentally, the court does not agree with Debtor's argument that the division of labor among its attorneys was an efficient use of attorney time in this case. It appears the contrary because the attorneys working on the case duplicated their work. Efpar argued in its supplemental opposition that one of the categories of objectionable fees was "excessive time incurred by assigning counsel inexperienced in real estate litigation," which included "in particular various research projects and work undertaken by attorney Mr. Nelson which by its description discloses a distinct lack of experience and would have been totally unnecessary had this case been assigned to a single attorney such as Mr. Minier to conduct the litigation from beginning to end." Supplemental Opposition at 17-18. While Debtor argues that one associate attorney did legal research, another associate attorney did factual investigation and the partner supervised the legal research and factual investigation, the billing entries show that the junior associate did both legal research and factual investigation, the senior associate did all three, legal research, factual investigation and supervision of the junior associate doing both, and the partner also did all three, legal research, factual investigation and supervision of the junior attorneys. In re Macke International Trade, Inc., 370 B.R. at 254 ("Excessive use of senior partner rates in research may also justify a reduction.") (citation omitted). In this regard, the court agrees with Efpar that R&S did not exercise reasonable billing judgment in divvying up the tasks between the three attorneys who worked on the case in writing down time for work by an inexperienced and less efficient attorney and duplication of services between the three attorneys. There is no other reasonable explanation of why so much time and fees were billed for the law and motion phase other than the inefficiencies from duplication of services and work by an inexperienced attorney. The court observes that in researching Efpar's proof of claim, Mr. Nelson billed 27 hours for basic research at $300 per hour, or $8,100 in fees, including 1.4 hours of drafting memoranda, regarding damages in contracts involving the sale of real property, cancellation of a contract, state court lis pendens issues, amendments to contracts, and the revival of a contract. The court determines that in this case, it is unreasonable to bill for this rudimentary research. For this reason, the court does not allow any of the 27 hours for Mr. Nelson's basic research. As another example, from January 2014 to April 2014, Mr. Nelson billed 5.6 hours to "analyze Efpar's proof of claim for possible objection" describing the same work in time entries with a few different variations. The court finds this time unnecessary, excessive, and vague, and does not allow any of these 5.6 hours of Mr. Nelson's billed time. On February 4, 2014, Mr. Nelson billed 0.1 hours to "follow up on objection to Efpar claim," which is vague and lacking in any meaningful description and should not be allowed. Similarly, Mr. Minier billed 0.9 hours for "research re case law and statutory authority re measure of damages for breach of contract to convey real property re settlement negotiations," which appears to be basic legal research that is unreasonable to bill for. Mr. Minier billed 5.9 hours from August 2013 to March 2014 to "review and analyze correspondence and documents received" from either counsel for Efpar or M. Orh. The court determines that these entries are vague and excessive and will not be allowed, except as otherwise credited for Mr. Minier's preparation of the motion.
The court will not allow time for the inexperienced attorney, Mr. Nelson, because he would not have been efficient in conducting legal research or drafting, which is evident in the inordinate amount of time billed by him on this simple and straightforward case involving basic issues of contract law. The proposed adjustment in the chart analysis attached to Efpar's supplemental opposition for excessive use of inexperienced real estate litigation counsel was a relatively minor amount of $6,920.00. Exhibit A to Supplemental Opposition. The court's adjustment as to billing by the junior attorney as reflected in its analysis is probably far larger than stated in Efpar's supplemental opposition as to this item in reducing the amount of fees allowed based on services of the more experienced associate attorney, Mr. Minier, and not just disallowing fees for the less experienced attorney, Mr. Nelson. The court's consideration is based on the rationale that only reasonably necessary fees based on the nature of the case in light of "the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved", which is one of the lodestar adjustment factors in the case law, should be allowed. Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th at 1132. This also includes not allowing all of the fees billed by Mr. Ringstad, the partner/senior attorney, given the relative simplicity, and the lack of novelty and difficulty, of the questions involved. It should not have taken almost $60,000 ($59,422.50) in fees from 161.2 hours of attorney time to write and argue this motion on an objection to claim based on uncomplicated issues of contract law. Debtor's claim for attorneys' fees is based on a division of labor used by R&S which did not result in reasonable fees, and therefore, adjustments must be made.
The court also agrees with Efpar's objection to fees for services incurred for work not related to the objection to Efpar's claim, i.e., reviewing and analyzing the transcript of the deposition of David Zander, another claimant, and for services incurred regarding objections to multiple claims of Efpar and other claimants without allocation between these claimants as not necessary to the litigation of Debtor's objection to Efpar's claim. In the court's view, Debtor cannot claim fees for work involving Debtor's objections to claims of other creditors which do not relate to Efpar's claim, and the fees should not be allowed as to review and analysis of the Zander deposition and reduced as to work performed relating to objections to claims of creditors other than Efpar.
PRETRIAL LITIGATION PHASE
The pretrial litigation phase consisted of Debtor's participation in mediation, discovery and the preparation of pleadings for the pretrial conference, including trial declarations, and the appearance at the pretrial conference and encompasses the billing entries in Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8 to Debtor's Supplemental Reply. The total fees and hours billed by R&S for the pretrial litigation phase consisting of mediation, discovery and preparing for and handling the pretrial conference were $104,382.50 and 259.3 hours of services. By attorney, this breaks down to $2,970.00 in fees for 9.9 hours of service by Mr. Nelson at $300.00 per hour, $81,787.50 in fees for 218.1 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour, and $25,312.50 in fees for 40.5 hours of service by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour.
Efpar asserted specific objections to the pretrial phase of the litigation. In its original opposition, Efpar argued that the amount of time spent by Debtor's attorneys for trial preparation, i.e., over 200 hours by Mr. Minier, over 50 hours by Mr. Nelson and over 40 hours by Mr. Ringstad was clearly excessive and unreasonable because "[t]his action involved a simple claim," "[t]here were few witnesses in a short two day trial," "[t]here was no need for three attorneys to work on such a simple case," noting that the attorneys, Mr. Ringstad in particular, "spent a substantial amount of time duplicating time already spent." Opposition at 16-17.
As a specific example, Efpar argued that the time charged for mediation was excessive: "Mr. Nelson, Mr. Minier and Mr. Ringstad spent 32.5 hours in connection with the mediation, e.g., scheduling and rescheduling a mediation. There is no need for an attorney with eighteen years experience (Mr. Minier) to schedule and reschedule a mediation at the cost of $375 per hour. On top of that, both Mr. Minier and Mr. Ringstad allegedly spent numerous hours in connection with 'settlement status' and 'settlement discussions.'" Id. at 17.
On the chart analysis by Efpar's counsel attached to the Supplemental Opposition, Efpar asserted objections to billing entries for fees for services relating to the deposition of Jae H. Kim, Debtor's lawyer who handled the state court litigation involving multiple parties, including Efpar, regarding Debtor's "abandoned" claim of contract invalidity, for services relating to mediation of multiple claims of Efpar and other claimants without allocation as to the other claims, review of document production in state court litigation involving multiple claims of Efpar and other claimants without allocation as to the other claims, for services related to "appraiser shopping" (i.e., selection of an appraiser as a valuation expert for Debtor), for services related to communications with Roger Hsu as the attorney for Debtor's insiders, for services related to the deposition of David Wan, Debtor's broker on grounds of relevance except for issue of contract breach, as not necessary to the litigation of Debtor's objection to Efpar's claim.
With respect to the pretrial phase of the litigation, as to Efpar's argument that Debtor's counsel performed duplicative services, as noted previously, in the reply to the opposition, Debtor generally argued that "[t]here was no duplication of efforts or rebilling of time" in that R&S "divvied up" the work among the attorneys to "ensure[] that less expensive attorneys handle as much of matters as possible, with more expensive attorneys handling tasks that require greater skill and experience." Debtor's Reply at 11-12. Specifically, in this case, Debtor stated that "Mr. Nelson did most of the legal research and drafted much of the initial pleadings, Mr. Minier did some of the legal research and most of the factual investigation, oversaw and directed Mr. Nelson's research and drafting, handled most of the discussions and negotiations with opposing counsel, and attended most of the hearings, and Mr. Ringstad supervised the effort, assigned research and writing tasks, and handled the trial." Id. at 11.
In responding to Efpar's contention that the overall fees of Debtor's attorneys are excessive, Debtor cited the work needed to litigate this matter: "[T]he Claim Objection was pending for almost 19 months, including significant discovery (by the Firm), preparation for an attendance at a nearly 12-[h]our mediation, completion of trial preparation, completion of trial, and significant post-trial work including a closing argument held a month after the trial, and at the Court's request detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by both parties, who then were permitted to and did file objections to each other's Findings and Conclusions." Debtor's Reply at 14. In response to Efpar's argument that Debtor's attorneys' fees are excessive because Debtor incurred more fees than Efpar, Debtor responded: "Finally, as a general matter, it is not surprising that the Debtor incurred more fees and expenses than Efpar. The Debtor took discovery, including a request for production of documents and interrogatories and noticed and took depositions of six witnesses. Efpar served no discovery and took no depositions. As discussed in more detailed in the Minier Declaration, the firm drafted the Joint Pre-Trial Order which included numerous stipulated facts. The Debtor's trial declarations were more extensive and detailed than Efpar's, totaling 31 pages of testimony to Efpar's 12. The Debtor's counsel may have simply worked harder, and the successful outcome justifies those efforts." Id.
In the original reply to Efpar's opposition, Debtor responded to Efpar's argument that the 32.6 hours spent in connection with the mediation was excessive, specifically relating to the scheduling and rescheduling of the mediation, stating that because the mediation involved multiple parties, including Debtor's former counsel and Debtor's former broker, since Debtor was trying to settle and conclude multiple litigations at once, the coordination of the mediation was made more difficult, including that Efpar had informed Debtor of a scheduling conflict only a few days before the original date of the mediation, causing additional time to be spent rescheduling the mediation.
As previously noted, in the supplemental reply to Efpar's opposition asserting that the fees are excessive and clearly unreasonable, Debtor's defense of the fees billed in the pretrial phase of the litigation is set forth in the Supplemental Reply at 21-27 and Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8 attached thereto discussing the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of eleven of Debtor's fee categories: (4) mediation (totaling 41.3 hours and $19,507.50 in fees); (5) pretrial preparation (totaling 93.1 hours and $36,860.00 in fees); (6) discovery (totaling 104.4 hours and $39,987.50 in fees); and (7) preparation of Debtor's trial declarations (totaling 26.7 hours and $10,687.50 in fees).
Debtor's justification of the time spent by its lawyers was set forth in the listing of the tasks performed by them in these categories:
Category 4 (Mediation of Disputes with Creditors): preparing all of the required court forms to have the matter assigned to mediation and to have a mediator appointed; researching potential mediators; engaging in ongoing communicating with Efpar's counsel to choose a mediator and arrange the mediation which the parties mutually agreed to be expanded to a "global" mediation to include Mandarin Realty/David Wan and their insurer, Jae H. Kim/JHK Law Group and their insurer; preparation of the Debtor's mediation brief; engaging in "extensive" communication with the mediator, Efpar's counsel, Mandarin's counsel, JHK's counsel as well as Debtor's principal and special litigation counsel to arrange the mediation, including rescheduling due to Efpar's request to reschedule the mediation; communicating with the Debtor's principals and special litigation counsel to prepare for and develop a strategy for the mediation; preparing a stipulation continuing the mediation completion deadline established by the court; reviewing the mediation briefs and other documents; preparing a binder of documents to take to mediation in preparation for attending the same and traveling to the mediator's office in Riverside and attending the mediation.
Category 5 (Pre-Trial Preparation): negotiating, drafting, revising and finalizing the parties' joint pretrial stipulation and order, exhibit lists and witness lists, and reviewing documents in connection with same; analyzing documents and issues in order to ascertain the work that needed to be completed to prepare for trial; researching potential appraisers to use as Debtor's trial valuation expert, and communicating with such potential experts regarding their qualifications and providing them with case facts and documents to assess work and possible conflicts of interest; ongoing communication with Efpar's counsel regarding trial preparation issues, trial scheduling issues and possible postponement of trial; ongoing communications with the Debtor's principal and special litigation counsel to prepare for trial; ongoing communications with Efpar's counsel, the Debtor's principal and special litigation counsel regarding possible settlement of the parties' dispute; ongoing communications with appraiser selected by Debtor to provide him with relevant documents, and to facilitate his preparation of appraisal report and to discuss contents of report generated and use of same at trial; communicating with Debtor's special litigation counsel to obtain additional evidentiary documents from same, and analyze documents received; reviewing Efpar's direct trial testimony declarations and exhibits; preparation of a notice of status conference in contested matter; negotiating and drafting a stipulation to continue the trial, the pre-trial conference and various related deadlines; attending several contested matter status conferences and pre-trial conferences; researching standards for recovery of attorneys' fees pursuant to contact by prevailing party; reviewing deposition transcripts, discovery responses and document productions of various parties in prepetition state court lawsuits; analyzing appraisal report and attachments by Debtor's appraiser; researching case law and statutory authority regarding Efpar's claim to be liable to lender for undocumented loan commitment fee; communicating with counsel for other creditors re status of Debtor's litigation with Efpar and timeline for expected resolution of same; obtaining and reviewing additional evidentiary documents from the Debtor's principals; preparation of motion for authority to employ and pay Debtor's valuation expert, Peregrine Realty Partners/Bradley Lofgren and related documents, communicate with appraiser regarding same, obtain and review documents from Peregrine for motion; reviewing Efpar's trial exhibits and communicate with Efpar's counsel regarding the parties stipulating close to all of each other's trial exhibits; drafting the declaration of Debtor's counsel regarding Debtor's unilateral lodging of proposed Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation and Order and reasons for same; research possible real estate transaction expert, Richard Reimer, to be hired by Debtor for trial, and communicate with expert to ascertain qualifications of same and negotiate terms of employment of same; provide documents to real estate transaction expert; preparation of supplement to Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation and Order setting forth Debtor's agreement to stipulation to foundation/authenticity of close to all of Efpar's trial exhibits; and communicating with Debtor's trial witnesses regarding same testifying at trial on cross-examination.
Category 6 (Discovery): reviewing documents in furtherance of preparing written discovery requests; preparation of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Efpar; ongoing communications with Efpar's counsel regarding its document production and provision of responses to written discovery requests, and multiple requests for extension of time for same; redrafting a stipulation and proposed order granting Efpar an extension of time to respond to discovery requests and extending deadline for completion of discovery, and review documents to prepare same; ongoing communication with Efpar's counsel to schedule depositions being taken by the Debtor of Efpar's trial witnesses and others; arranging, preparing for and engaging in, multiple "meet and confer" conferences with Efpar's counsel to resolve discovery disputes that developed pertaining to Efpar's untimely and incomplete discovery responses; researching various procedural and substantive issues related to discovery being taken by Debtor, procedural requirements regarding the same and resolving discovery disputes that developed with Efpar; preparation of deposition notices and subpoenas for depositions of six witnesses; preparation of second stipulation continuing deadline for Debtor to conduct follow up discovery due to Efpar's late production of documents; communicating with third-party deponents and their counsel regarding arranging depositions of same; reviewing and resolving objection to notice of taking deposition of Jae H. Kim; preparation of third stipulation and order continuing deadline for Debtor to complete follow up discovery; preparation of six new notices of taking depositions for rescheduled deposition dates; communicating with process service regarding efforts to serve deposition subpoenas on third party witnesses; reviewing documents produced by Efpar, as well as its responses and supplemental responses to Debtor's written discovery requests; obtaining additional documents from Debtor's special litigation counsel and Debtor's principals related for depositions being taken by Debtor; reviewing documents in preparation for taking depositions, preparing documents to be used at depositions (most of which were document intensive) and preparing questions for depositions; preparation of a written waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine insisted upon by Counsel for Jae H. Kim before she would let him testify at deposition; communicating with Debtor's real estate valuation expert in preparation for deposition of Efpar's valuation expert, and review documents received from same to prepare deposition questions; take six depositions, most of which lasted nearly an entire day, and one of which was required to be taken in Los Angeles at the insistence of Efpar's counsel.
Category 7(Preparing Trial Declarations): developing and preparing Debtor's direct testimony trial declarations, including the Debtor's principal, Michelle Orh, the Debtor's real estate valuation expert, Peregrine Realty/Bradley Lofgren, the Debtor's real estate transaction expert, Richard Niemer, and Escrow Officer Iris Chase. As for the first phase of this litigation for law and motion work, this listing of tasks for the second phase of the litigation, pretrial litigation, did not set forth a narrative explanation regarding the simplicity or complexity of the factual or legal issues themselves in this matter. The court generally agrees with Efpar that the time spent by Debtor's counsel in the pretrial litigation phase of this case was excessive and that not all the time billed was reasonably necessary.
Specifically, the court agrees with Efpar that the time billed for mediation was excessive because many of the tasks billed for scheduling and rescheduling mediation are administrative in nature and should be not billed at attorney rates. There is no good reason why the administrative tasks of scheduling a mediation, or rescheduling one, should not have been handled by a nonlawyer legal assistant rather than a senior associate attorney billed at his normal lawyer rate of $375.00, or could have been handled in a more efficient way such as by email or a group calendaring computer program, such as doodle.com (at https://doodle.com). By using a group calendaring program, Debtor's counsel could have surveyed the mediator and other counsel regarding available times to schedule or reschedule the mediation. It was not necessary for Debtor's counsel to call the mediator's office and other counsel regarding setting up the dates and time of the mediation. The time billed for calendar-related tasks of 36 or so hours was excessive.
Even though the mediation also involved Debtor's disputes with other parties, including malpractice claims against Debtor's former real estate broker/agent, Mandarin Realty/David Wan, and Debtor's former attorney, JHK Group/Jae H. Kim, Debtor's counsel billed all the time for mediation to the Efpar dispute, which is not a fair and reasonable allocation of the time spent on mediation because time was spent in mediation on Debtor's disputes with other parties not related to the Efpar claim dispute, and thus, Debtor should have allocated attorney billed time to all three disputes involved in the mediation, and not just the Efpar dispute. Thus, the court determines that the time spent by Debtor's counsel should have been allocated among the three separate disputes, one dispute with Efpar, one dispute with Mandarin Realty/David Wan and one dispute with JHK Group/Jae H. Kim, and the allocation should be one-third allocation for each dispute because the time billed for the mediation of other disputes was not reasonably necessary to litigate the Efpar dispute as the disputes with the other parties to the mediation, Debtor's former real estate broker/agent and Debtor's former attorney, are not related to the Efpar claim dispute.
The court does not see how 259.3 hours of attorney time resulting in $104,382.50 in fees were reasonably necessary in the pretrial phase of the litigation to prepare the contested matter of Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's breach of contract claim for trial, conducting the mediation, conducting discovery and preparing the case for the pretrial conference. Among the tasks listed for the pretrial phase of the litigation were extraneous tasks relating to research and review of documents from the state court litigation, such as whether case law cited by Efpar in the state court litigation was applicable, or performance of administrative tasks which could have been performed by a lower cost nonattorney legal assistant, such as scheduling and rescheduling depositions, preparing deposition notices, stipulations and proposed orders to rescheduling discovery deadlines or depositions, communicating with process servers on serving witnesses, obtaining documents from special litigation counsel and Debtor's principals (i.e., the client representatives). In the court's view, what needed to be done to conduct the mediation, to conduct discovery and prepare the contested matter for the pretrial conference were the following tasks: (1) participate in the mediation of the dispute over Efpar's claim; (2) conduct discovery, including depositions and document production requests; (3) search for, retain and assist a valuation expert witness to appraise the real property; (4) attend status conferences; (5) prepare Debtor's witness and exhibit lists; (6) prepare the joint pretrial stipulation in cooperation with Efpar's counsel; (7) review Efpar's exhibits for admissibility and identify evidentiary objections on the joint pretrial stipulation; and (8) prepare direct testimony trial declarations for Debtor's trial witnesses.
Because the litigation of this contested matter was a simple and straightforward contractual dispute, the issues to be litigated in this matter were simple and straightforward, and extensive litigation proceedings were not necessary. The court has listed the tasks that needed to be accomplished in the pretrial litigation phase of this matter in general terms.
Mediation
The attorney time and fees billed for mediation of the Efpar claim objection dispute of 41.3 hours of attorney time and $19,507.50 in fees are excessive. The time needed for an attorney should have included time to review and select prospective mediators, to prepare a mediation statement, to consult with client representatives regarding mediation strategy and to participate in the mediation. As indicated by the billing entries of R&S, extensive attorney time was charged for administrative tasks related to mediation that should have been handled by nonattorney legal assistant staff and/or through electronic means like email or a group calendaring program, such as contacting the selected mediator's office to schedule the mediation appointment and communicating with the staff of other mediation participants regarding scheduling. Here, the parties agreed upon a mediator who was appointed by the court, prepared the mediator selection forms, coordinated the scheduling of the mediation with the mediator and other mediation participants, which were administrative tasks which should have been handled by nonattorney staff and/or handled electronically through email or a group calendaring program. It was not reasonably necessary to have an attorney spend hours to "research" the local rules and mediation procedures and forms and to handle scheduling or rescheduling functions as billed by R&S (sample entries included the following: 0.8 hours for "research re local rules, federal rules and court's trial procedures re calendaring various dates and deadlines re mediation and trial re debtor's objection to Efpar's claim," which is basic research and should not be charged for, multiple entries for essentially the same task, 0.3 hour for "review and analyze documents and issues re selecting mediator and alternate mediator with Efpar re debtor's objection to claim of same, and re completing and filing required mediation forms on a timely basis," and multiple entries for the same tasks, but worded in different ways).
The time needed to review and select a mediator should have reasonably taken no more than 2 hours, and in this regard, the court would allow 1.5 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($562.50), and 0.5 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($312.50), for review, totaling $875.00 in fees. The time needed to prepare a mediation statement should have taken no more than 3 hours since Debtor had already formulated its litigation positions as set forth in its moving and reply papers and the purpose of the mediation statement, as opposed to what Debtor calls a "mediation brief," was to educate the mediator as to Debtor's litigation position to allow the mediator to facilitate the mediation discussion. In this regard, the court would allow 2.0 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($750.00), for drafting, and 1.0 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($625.00), for review, totaling $1,375.00 in fees. The time needed to consult with client representatives regarding mediation strategy should have taken no more than 3 hours. In this regard, the court would allow 3.0 hours by Mr. Ringstad, as the lead counsel, at $625 per hour, to consult with the client representatives, totaling $1,875.00 in fees. The time needed to participate in the mediation should have taken no more than 10 hours (one full 8 hour day, plus 2 hours of travel time from counsel's office to the mediator's office in Riverside), totaling $6,250.00 in fees. Administrative tasks, such as filling out the mediator selection form documents and coordinating scheduling and rescheduling of the mediation session, should have been handled by nonattorney staff at a lower billing rate.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for handling the mediation total $10,375, which should be allocated among the three disputes mediated by dividing the amount by three, one-third for each dispute, or $3,458.33 for each dispute, including the Efpar claim dispute. Only this amount of $3,458.33 in attorneys' fees is reasonably allowed for fees relating to mediation for 6 hours of attorney time on a prorated basis.
Pretrial Preparation
The attorney time and fees billed for pretrial preparation for the Efpar claim objection dispute of 93.1 hours and $36,860.00 in fees are excessive. As previously stated, Debtor listed the following tasks in this category, including negotiating, drafting, revising and finalizing the parties' joint pretrial stipulation and order, exhibit lists and witness lists, and reviewing documents in connection with same; analyzing documents and issues in order to ascertain the work that needed to be completed to prepare for trial; researching potential appraisers to use as Debtor's trial valuation expert, and communicating with such potential experts regarding their qualifications and providing them with case facts and documents to assess work and possible conflicts of interest; ongoing communication with Efpar's counsel regarding trial preparation issues, trial scheduling issues and possible postponement of trial; ongoing communications with the Debtor's principal and special litigation counsel to prepare for trial; ongoing communications with Efpar's counsel, the Debtor's principal and special litigation counsel regarding possible settlement of the parties' dispute; ongoing communications with appraiser selected by Debtor to provide him with relevant documents, and to facilitate his preparation of appraisal report and to discuss contents of report generated and use of same at trial; communicating with Debtor's special litigation counsel to obtain additional evidentiary documents from same, and analyze documents received; reviewing Efpar's direct trial testimony declarations and exhibits; preparation of a notice of status conference in contested matter; negotiating and drafting a stipulation to continue the trial, the pre-trial conference and various related deadlines; attending several contested matter status conferences and pre-trial conferences; researching standards for recovery of attorneys' fees pursuant to contact by prevailing party; reviewing deposition transcripts, discovery responses and document productions of various parties in prepetition state court lawsuits; analyzing appraisal report and attachments by Debtor's appraiser; researching case law and statutory authority regarding Efpar's claim to be liable to lender for undocumented loan commitment fee; communicating with counsel for other creditors regarding the status of Debtor's litigation with Efpar and timeline for expected resolution of same; obtaining and reviewing additional evidentiary documents from the Debtor's principals; preparation of motion for authority to employ and pay Debtor's valuation expert, Peregrine Realty Partners/Bradley Lofgren and related documents, communicate with appraiser regarding same, obtain and review documents from Peregrine for motion; reviewing Efpar's trial exhibits and communicate with Efpar's counsel regarding the parties stipulating close to all of each other's trial exhibits; drafting the declaration of Debtor's counsel regarding Debtor's unilateral lodging of proposed Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation and Order and reasons for same; research possible real estate transaction expert, Richard Reimer, to be hired by Debtor for trial, and communicate with expert to ascertain qualifications of same and negotiate terms of employment of same; provide documents to real estate transaction expert; preparation of supplement to Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation and Order setting forth Debtor's agreement to stipulation to foundation/authenticity of close to all of Efpar's trial exhibits; and communicating with Debtor's trial witnesses regarding same testifying at trial on cross-examination.
Most of these tasks listed by Debtor's counsel regarding pretrial preparation are stated verbatim. Some of the tasks billed for conducting pretrial preparation were administrative in nature and should be not billed at attorney rates, including scheduling and rescheduling discovery, preparation of stipulations to extend deadlines for discovery responses, preparing deposition notices and subpoenas, preparing deposition exhibits, contacting potential witnesses regarding scheduling of depositions, obtaining documents from Debtor's special litigation counsel and communications regarding the same.
Extensive pretrial preparation was not needed in this matter. This dispute was primarily over contract interpretation, and the contract documents were known from the beginning of the dispute. The dispute was primarily decided on interpretation of the contract documents, the Sale Agreement, the Addendum, and the Second Amendment, for which extensive pretrial preparations were not needed. Debtor needed to participate in the preparation of a joint pretrial stipulation and attend the pretrial conference, prepare and file stipulations regarding scheduling of the pretrial conference, search for, retain and assist expert witnesses, including a qualified appraiser to render an opinion on valuation of the subject real property, and participate in settlement negotiations with Efpar in consultation with the client. Time for attorneys for Debtor in pretrial preparation was a reasonably necessary task, but the time needed to prepare for trial involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have not been extensive or complicated.
Debtor's counsel charged fees of $9,112.50 for 23.5 hours of attorney work in preparing the joint pretrial stipulation, including 22.3 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour ($8,362.50) for drafting the joint pretrial stipulation, including Debtor's witness and exhibit lists, and communicating with Efpar's counsel, and 1.2 hours by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour for review of the joint pretrial stipulation. Based on the court's review of the joint pretrial stipulation and the billing entries, it should not have taken so much attorney time and fees of over $9,000 for preparation of the joint pretrial stipulation, 23 pages in total, specifically consisting of 53 paragraphs of stipulated, mostly procedural facts, 5 disputed issues of fact, 1 undisputed issue of law, 9 disputed issues of law, 12 witnesses on Debtor's witness list and 40 exhibits on Debtor's exhibit list. As previously stated, the issues in this case are straightforward issues of contract law, not involving complicated facts, requiring a very simple joint pretrial stipulation, which it was. The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel to prepare the joint pretrial stipulation and Debtor's witness and exhibit lists as part of the joint pretrial stipulation. The time needed for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks should have reasonably taken no more than 7.2 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 6 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to participate in the drafting of the joint pretrial stipulation and to communicate with Efpar's counsel at $375 per hour ($2,250.00) and 1.2 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, to review the draft joint pretrial stipulation at $625 per hour ($750.00), totaling $3,000.00 in fees. The court will allow fees for additional reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel for pretrial preparation, including review of Efpar's trial declarations, 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier at $375.00 on September 24, 2014 and attending status conference, 0.6 hour by Mr. Minier on October 7, 2014, for a total of 1.6 hours at $375 per hour, or $600.00 in fees.
The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel to participate in settlement negotiations with Efpar's counsel and to consult with the client. The time needed for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks should have reasonably taken no more than 8.7 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 6.1 hours of work between September 12, 2014 and October 16, 2014 by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, who primarily handled the settlement negotiations with Efpar's counsel for Debtor, and the consultation with the client representatives, stipulation at $625 per hour ($3,812.50) and 2.6 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, who assisted Mr. Ringstad in the settlement negotiations for Debtor at $375 per hour ($975.00), totaling $4,787.50 in fees.
Debtor's counsel charged fees of $5,487.50 for 13.5 hours of attorney work to search for, and retain, a qualified real property appraiser to render an expert opinion for Debtor on valuation of the subject real property, which had a direct bearing on the computation of damages asserted by Efpar, to prepare an application to employ the retained expert witness and to assist the appraiser in obtaining the necessary material to prepare and render a valuation opinion in preparing the joint pretrial stipulation, including 11.8 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour ($4,425.50), and 1.7 hours by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour ($1,062.50). The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel to search for, and retain, a qualified real property appraiser to render an expert opinion for Debtor on valuation of the subject real property, which had a direct bearing on the computation of damages asserted by Efpar, to prepare an application to employ the retained expert witness and to assist the appraiser in obtaining the necessary material to prepare and render a valuation opinion. The court determines that it was reasonably necessary for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks, and time will be allowed for such. The time needed for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks should have reasonably taken no more than 13.5 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 11.8 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to search for, and retain for Debtor, a qualified real property appraiser to render an expert opinion on valuation of the subject real property, to prepare the application for employment of this expert and to assist the expert in obtaining the necessary material to prepare and render a valuation opinion at $375 per hour ($4,425) and 1.7 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, to review the search, retention, employment and preparation of the expert witness at $625 per hour ($1,062.5), totaling $5,487.50 in fees.
Debtor's counsel charged fees of $875.00 for 2.2 hours of attorney work to search for, and retain, a qualified real property transaction expert witness to render an expert opinion for Debtor on interpretation of the sales contract for the sale of the subject real property to Efpar, including 2 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour ($750.00) for 0.2 hours by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour ($125.00). The court will allow fees for the amount of time for Debtor's counsel to search for, and retain, a qualified real property transaction expert witness to render an expert opinion for Debtor on interpretation of the sales contract for the sale of the subject real property to Efpar, which arguably had a direct bearing on the computation of damages asserted by Efpar, to prepare an application to employ the retained expert witness and to assist the expert obtain the necessary material to prepare and render a contract interpretation opinion. While the court has serious reservations about the propriety of retaining this expert because his contract interpretation opinion is really disguised argument in support of Debtor's interpretation of the contract that it did not breach the contract, the court determines that it was reasonably necessary for work of Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks, and time will be allowed for such. The court will allow the $875.00 billed by Debtor's counsel for this work.
For pretrial preparation, Debtor's counsel billed 8.4 hours and $3,312.50 in corresponding and conferring with Efpar's counsel, 8.8 hours and $3,525.00 in fees corresponding and conferring with Debtor's prospective expert witnesses and 22.7 hours and $9,450.00 corresponding and conferring with others, including client representatives and state court litigation counsel. Some of this time and these fees have already been allowed regarding preparation of the joint pretrial stipulation, consulting with prospective expert witnesses and settlement negotiations. However, some of this corresponding and conferring is not reasonably necessary, such as with Debtor's state court counsel because as stated previously, the issues of this case are simple and straightforward issues of contract law, and while it may have been reasonable and necessary for some consultation with state court counsel in the beginning of the case, which has been allowed, but not constant corresponding and conferring with state court counsel afterwards regarding research of state law issues and trial since these matters were now for Debtor's bankruptcy counsel to handle. Moreover, the time corresponding and conferring with client representatives in pretrial preparation is excessive. The total corresponding and conferring between Debtor's counsel and Debtor's client representatives and state court counsel for pretrial preparation of 22.7 hours at $9,450.00 is excessive.
Substantial time was also billed by the junior attorney, Mr. Nelson, for pretrial preparation of the case, even though he was neither the trial attorney nor the senior associate attorney who primarily handled the pretrial preparation of the case for Debtor. After the court's review of his billing entries for trial preparation, the court determines that his work was not necessary. Mr. Nelson billed substantial time for researching the admissibility of evidence, including reviewing pleadings (0.5 hour on August 11, 2014), analyzing issues (0.2 hour on October 1, 2014), researching award of attorneys' fees as prevailing party (0.2 hour on October 10, 2014 - duplicative of research performed by Mr. Minier on the same date), analyzing issues (0.2 hour on November 19, 2014), reviewing the transcript of the deposition of Brandon Michaels, one of Efpar's valuation witnesses (1.0 hour on December 5, 2014) and analyzing the scope of the pretrial order (2.5 hours on December 16, 2014). None of this work was reasonably necessary because there is no showing that the tasks of "reviewing" and "analyzing" as opposed to "doing" something had any litigation purpose and because it was duplicative of the pretrial preparation work performed by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney. Mr. Nelson's review and analysis is not shown to have any litigation purpose and is not otherwise shown to be reasonably necessary, and fees for such time is not allowed.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for pretrial preparation total $14,750.00 for 33.2 hours of attorney time.
Discovery
The attorney time and fees billed for discovery for the Efpar claim objection dispute of 98.2 hours and $37,327.50 in fees are excessive. As previously stated, Debtor listed the following tasks in this category, including reviewing documents in furtherance of preparing written discovery requests; preparation of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Efpar; ongoing communications with Efpar's counsel regarding its document production and provision of responses to written discovery requests, and multiple requests for extension of time for same; redrafting a stipulation and proposed order granting Efpar an extension of time to respond to discovery requests and extending deadline for completion of discovery, and review documents to prepare same; ongoing communication with Efpar's counsel to schedule depositions being taken by the Debtor of Efpar's trial witnesses and others; arranging, preparing for and engaging in, multiple "meet and confer" conferences with Efpar's counsel to resolve discovery disputes that developed pertaining to Efpar's untimely and incomplete discovery responses; researching various procedural and substantive issues related to discovery being taken by Debtor, procedural requirements regarding the same and resolving discovery disputes that developed with Efpar; preparation of deposition notices and subpoenas for depositions of six witnesses; preparation of second stipulation continuing deadline for Debtor to conduct follow up discovery due to Efpar's late production of documents; communicating with third-party deponents and their counsel regarding arranging depositions of same; reviewing and resolving objection to notice of taking deposition of Jae H. Kim; preparation of third stipulation and order continuing deadline for Debtor to complete follow up discovery; preparation of six new notices of taking depositions for rescheduled deposition dates; communicating with process service regarding efforts to serve deposition subpoenas on third party witnesses; reviewing documents produced by Efpar, as well as its responses and supplemental responses to Debtor's written discovery requests; obtaining additional documents from Debtor's special litigation counsel and Debtor's principals related for depositions being taken by Debtor; reviewing documents in preparation for taking depositions, preparing documents to be used at depositions (most of which were document intensive) and preparing questions for depositions; preparation of a written waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine insisted upon by Counsel for Jae H. Kim before she would let him testify at deposition; communicating with Debtor's real estate valuation expert in preparation for deposition of Efpar's valuation expert, and review documents received from same to prepare deposition questions; take six depositions, most of which lasted nearly an entire day, and one of which was required to be taken in Los Angeles at the insistence of Efpar's counsel. Most of these tasks listed by Debtor's counsel regarding discovery are stated verbatim. Many of the tasks billed for conducting discovery are administrative in nature and should be not billed at attorney rates, including scheduling and rescheduling discovery, preparation of stipulations to extend deadlines for discovery responses, preparing deposition notices and subpoenas, preparing deposition exhibits, contacting potential witnesses regarding scheduling of depositions, obtaining documents from Debtor's special litigation counsel and communications regarding the same.
Extensive discovery was not needed in this matter. This dispute was primarily over contract interpretation, and the contract documents were known from the beginning of the dispute. The dispute was primarily decided on interpretation of the contract documents, the Sale Agreement, the Addendum, and the Second Amendment, for which further discovery was not needed. Debtor needed to take some limited discovery regarding to the conduct of the parties during the contract negotiation process, which would include depositions of the principals of Debtor, the Orhs, and principal of Efpar, Mr. Efraim, and document production relating to the communications between the parties during contract negotiations. Such discovery would have addressed the need for Debtor to evaluate its defenses to Efpar's claim for breach of contract, which defenses turned out not to be viable.
Debtor needed to conduct discovery of the bases for Efpar's claim for damages, including evidence of the various costs it claims to have incurred as consequential damages for Debtor's breach of contract, which turned out to the be primary dispute in the case. The parties also needed to take discovery regarding the valuation of the subject real property, which was an important issue for determining Efpar's claim for damages based on loss of bargain, and such discovery would have included preparing for and attending depositions of the parties' valuation expert witnesses.
The court has reviewed the written discovery requests propounded by Debtor through counsel as copies of these discovery requests, Debtor's interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and Efpar's responses thereto, including supplemental responses, were listed as Debtor's Trial Exhibits 34 through 39. Debtor's discovery requests were fairly simple and straightforward, that is, interrogatories and document requests seeking identification of facts and documents relating to Efpar's claims for breach of contract and for damages therefrom. Debtor's interrogatories consisted of 19 interrogatories requesting Efpar to state facts and/or identify documents in support of its contentions of contractual breach and damages. Debtor's Trial Exhibit 35. Debtor's document production requests consisted of 35 requests to Efpar to produce documents in support of its contentions of contractual breach and damages. Debtor's Trial Exhibit 34. Efpar's responses consisted of an original response and a supplemental response for each of Debtor's interrogatories and document production requests. Debtor's Trial Exhibits 36 through 39. In these responses, Efpar raised legal objections to the interrogatories and document production requests, but having reserved its rights based on objections, responded substantively to many, if not, most of the interrogatories and document production requests, stating that as to the documents, the documents were produced or were being produced. Id. Having reviewed Debtor's written discovery requests and Efpar's responses thereto, it should not have taken extensive time for Debtor's counsel to propound such discovery requests and review the responses thereto.
Debtor noticed and took the depositions of six witnesses, Farzad Sean Rahbar, a principal at SR Capital, Efpar's lender, Julian F. Torkan, Efpar's real estate agent, Jae H. Kim, Debtor's former attorney, Fred Efraim, one of Efpar's principals, David Wan, Debtor's real estate agent, and Brandon Michaels, Efpar's real estate agent valuation expert witness. The court has reviewed the transcripts of these depositions which Debtor had indicated it would be offering into evidence. Debtor took Mr. Rahbar's deposition regarding Efpar's claim of damages relating to loan costs through loan financing from SR Capital. Debtor took the depositions of Mr. Torkan and Mr. Wan as the real estate agents for the parties and of Mr. Kim as Debtor's former attorney regarding Efpar's claim of breach of contract by Debtor. Debtor took the depositions of Mr. Efraim and Mr. Michaels as Efpar's designated valuation expert witnesses regarding Efpar's claim of damages based on the valuation of the subject real property.
Debtor needed to respond to Efpar's discovery, but as it stated in its fee motion, Efpar only conducted minimal discovery, so not much attorney time was needed for responding to any discovery requests from Efpar. Time for attorneys for Debtor to conduct discovery was a reasonably necessary task, but the time needed to conduct discovery involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law in this relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have not been extensive or complicated.
The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel for preparation of written interrogatories and document production requests to Efpar regarding the contract formation, negotiation and performance, including Debtor's breach, and the bases for Efpar's claim of damages for breach of contract, to prepare requests for production of documents by Efpar relating to these matters and to review Efpar's responses to Debtor's written discovery requests. The time needed for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks should have reasonably taken no more than 9.6 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 4 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to draft the discovery requests and 3 hours to review Efpar's responses and to correspond with Efpar's counsel regarding the responses at $375 per hour ($2,625.00) and 2 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, to review the draft discovery requests and 0.6 hours to confer with Mr. Minier regarding review of Efpar's responses thereto at $625 per hour ($1,625.00), totaling $4,250.00 in fees.
The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel to direct preparation of notices of deposition, prepare for depositions of potential witnesses and appearing for and taking depositions of potential witnesses. Debtor took depositions of six witnesses, including Farzad Sean Rahbar, a principal at SR Capital, Efpar's lender, Julian F. Torkan, Efpar's real estate agent, Jae H. Kim, Debtor's former attorney, Fred Efraim, one of Efpar's principals, David Wan, Debtor's real estate agent, and Brandon Michaels, Efpar's real estate agent valuation expert witness. The court determines that it was reasonably necessary for work of Debtor's counsel to prepare for these depositions, and time will be allowed for such. The time needed for Debtor's counsel to perform these tasks should have reasonably taken no more than 34.6 hours of attorney time. In this regard, the court will allow 1.0 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of Farzad Sean Rahbar and 2.9 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Rahbar, at $375 per hour, totaling $1,462.50 in fees. The court will allow 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of Julian Torkan and 3.6 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Torkan, at $375 per hour, totaling $1,725.00 in fees. The court will allow 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of Fred Efraim and 4.8 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Efraim, at $375 per hour, totaling $2,175.00 in fees. The court will allow 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of Jae H. Kim, 0.4 hour to draft the attorney-client privilege waiver for Mr. Kim and to consult the client, and 4.8 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Kim, at $375 per hour, totaling $2,325.00 in fees. The court will allow 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of David Wan and 5.6 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Wan, at $375 per hour, totaling $2,475.00 in fees. The court will allow 1.0 hour by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, to prepare for the deposition of Brandon Michaels and 6.5 hours to attend the deposition of Mr. Michaels, at $375 per hour, totaling $2,812.50 in fees.
Debtor's counsel billed much time for preparing deposition notices and subpoenas, which is primarily an administrative task since these notices and subpoenas are form documents which should be prepared by a nonattorney legal assistant rather than an attorney billing at attorney rates, though the court would allow time for review of such documents prepared by a legal assistant. Here, Mr. Minier billed 1.6 hours at $375.00, totaling $600.00 on August 14, 2014 for preparing six deposition notices and subpoenas, 0.2 hour at $375.00, totaling $75.00, for preparing a deposition notice for one of the same witnesses on September 7, 2014, 1.2 hours at $375.00, totaling $450.00 for preparing four deposition notices and two subpoenas for the same witnesses on September 16, 2014, 0.2 hour at $375.00 totalling $75.00 for preparing a deposition notice and a subpoena for one of the same witnesses on September 17, 2014, and 0.4 hour at $375 per hour, totaling $150.00 for finalizing multiple deposition notices and subpoenas for the same witnesses on September 17, 2014. Instead of billing $1,350.00 in fees for 3.6 hours of attorney time, Mr. Minier should have had a legal assistant prepare these documents and billed at most 0.75 hour at $375.00, totaling $281.25 in fees to instruct the legal assistant and review the documents before service. The court will allow fees of $281.25 for Mr. Minier to instruct and review the preparation of deposition notices and subpoenas.
Debtor's counsel billed numerous hours for communications, including drafting and reviewing correspondence, including email correspondence, and telephone conferences with the clients, Debtor's insiders, counsel for Efpar, Debtor's special litigation counsel, review, and assistants to these parties, and most of these communications related to arranging meetings, scheduling and rescheduling of depositions, which should have been handled by nonattorney legal assistants rather than by an attorney billing at a senior associate rate. The court will allow some time, but most of the time should not be allowed for lack of showing of reasonable necessity. For example, Mr. Minier billed 0.1 hour twice at $375 per hour, or $75.00, to "review and analyze" two separate emails from the court reporting agency on scheduling depositions, that is, looking at two emails, which probably took 1 minute at most to look at. Thus, this example shows that Efpar's argument about the problem of billing a minimum of tenths of an hour would appear to have some force.
Debtor's counsel also billed time for basic research which is unnecessary for an experienced trial attorney. Here, Mr. Minier billed 0.6 hour at $375 per hour, totaling $225.00, on September 24, 2014 for "research re case law and Federal Rules of Evidence re taking depositions in preparation for Efpar trial." There is no showing that such "research" was reasonably necessary for the particular facts of this case to warrant allowance. Mr. Minier billed 0.4 hour at $375.00 per hour, totaling $150, on September 23, 2014 for "research re case law drafting correspondence re impropriety of same failing to respond to interrogatory re expected testimony of Efpar's trial witness." There is no showing of reasonable necessity for such research since the responses indicated that Efpar did respond to the interrogatory, apparently on its face.
The junior associate, Mr. Nelson, billed 0.3 hour at $300 per hour, totaling $90.00 for "draft areas for questions in deposition of D. Wan." No showing was made that such work was reasonably necessary since Mr. Nelson was not the attorney representing Debtor at the deposition of Mr. Wan, and such fees should not be allowed.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for conducting discovery total $17,506.25 for 44.95 hours of attorney time.
Preparing Debtor's Trial Declarations
The attorney time and fees billed for preparing direct testimony trial declarations of witnesses by Debtor for trial of the Efpar claim objection of 26.7 hours of attorney time and $10,687.50 in fees are excessive.
Debtor called four witnesses at trial, Michelle Orh, Debtor's managing member, Bradley Lofgren, Debtor's expert witness on valuation, Iris Chae, an escrow officer at Commerce Escrow Company responsible for the escrow between Efpar and Debtor that was opened for the sale of the subject real property, and Richard Riemer, II, Debtor's expert witness on real estate transactions.
The declaration of Michelle Orh was important because she was Debtor's chief percipient witness regarding the events relating to contract negotiation, formation and performance between Debtor and Efpar. Her trial declaration was 16 pages long and elaborated on her testimony in her 4-page declaration in support of Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's claim. Eight pages of Ms. Orh's declaration pertained to the issues of contract negotiation, formation and performance of the contract with Efpar, which were relevant to the case. However, the remaining pages of the declaration pertained to extraneous matters, including Dowent's financial condition as its motivation to sell the subject property and the litigation between Debtor and David Zander and Efpar, which are not directly relevant to the case. The time charged for communicating with, and preparing, Ms. Orh's declaration relating her knowledge of the facts pertaining to the issues of contract negotiation, formation and performance of the contract with Efpar relevant to the case should be allowed in a reasonable amount, but the time charged for communicating with, and preparing, her declaration relating to extraneous matters, such as Debtor's financial condition, Debtor's motivation to sell the subject property and recitation of the litigation proceedings by David Zander and Efpar for breach of contract, should not be allowed. The time needed to communicate with Ms. Orh and prepare her declaration should have reasonably taken no more than 8 hours, and in this regard, the court would allow 7.0 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($2,625.00), and 1.0 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($625.00), for review, totaling $3,250.00 in fees.
The declaration of Bradley Lofgren was also important because he was the Debtor's expert witness on valuation, which was the primary issue in the case. The value of Mr. Lofgren's testimony was his valuation analysis of the Debtor's real property which was primarily set forth in his appraisal or valuation report attached to the declaration. The primary purpose of the declaration was to state the witness's qualifications as a valuation expert and authenticate the witness's formal valuation analysis report, but the declaration also contained Mr. Lofgren's analysis of the valuation opinions of Efpar's valuation witnesses. Arguably, this analysis of the other side's valuation witnesses should have been drafted by the witness himself, Mr. Lofgren, rather than by counsel since essentially, the opinions expressed are the witness's rather than counsel's and an extension of his formal valuation report as counsel's function is just to put the witness's testimony into declaration format. The time needed to communicate with Mr. Lofgren and prepare his declaration should have reasonably taken no more than 4 hours, and in this regard, the court would allow 3.5 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($1,312.50), and 0.5 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($312.50), for review, totaling $1,625.00 in fees.
The declaration of Iris Chae was 5 paragraphs long and less than 2 pages, containing minimal substantive content. Her testimony was that during the escrow, Efpar did not give notice to the escrow that it disapproved the estoppel certificates of two of Debtor's tenants on the subject real property. Debtor intended to show by this testimony that it did not breach the contract with Efpar based on this ground. The time needed to communicate with Ms. Chae and prepare her declaration should have reasonably taken no more than 1 hour, and in this regard, the court would allow 0.9 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($337.50), and 0.1 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($62.50), for review, totaling $400.00 in fees.
The declaration of Richard Reimer, II, was 5 pages long, containing his legal opinion that based on the form contract document used for the Sale Agreement between Debtor and Efpar, the escrow and contract were cancelled by Efpar's failure to close escrow within 5 days of Debtor submitting a cancellation certificate. Debtor intended to show by this testimony that the contract with Efpar was cancelled or terminated based on this ground. Efpar had objected to this testimony on relevance ground based on its motion in limine to exclude evidence of a contract termination before the parties executed the Second Amendment on June 7, 2012, which the court denied. See Efpar's Objection to Declaration of Richard Reimer, ECF 349 at 2. While the court overruled Efpar's objection to this testimony based on relevance, the court accorded no weight to this testimony. First, the testimony was wrong in opining that the contract was terminated because the evidence as determined by the court and discussed in its memorandum decision showed that Debtor did not terminate the contract because it failed to give proper notice of cancellation as required by the terms of the contract. Claim Disallowance Memorandum Decision, ECF 399 at 40-44. Second, the court disregarded this witness's testimony because it was a legal opinion not of assistance to the court for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and was thus disguised legal argument of Debtor. Although the court has some inclination to disallow time charged for preparing Mr. Reimer's declaration since it is really disguised legal argument as legal opinion about contract interpretation, the court will allow reasonable necessary time to prepare his declaration. The time needed to communicate with Mr. Reimer and prepare his declaration should have reasonably taken no more than 1.5 hour, and in this regard, the court would allow 1.4 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($525.00), and 0.1 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($62.50), for review, totaling $587.50 in fees.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for preparing the direct testimony trial declarations of Debtor's witnesses total $5,862.50 for 14.5 hours of attorney time.
TRIAL PHASE OF LITIGATION
The trial phase consisted of the preparation of Debtor's trial brief and related matters, motions in limine, objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits and related matters, appearance at the trial and the preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and encompasses the billing entries in Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12 to Debtor's Supplemental Reply. The total fees and hours billed by R&S for the trial phase, consisting of preparing for trial, appearing at the trial and preparing post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law, were $128,195.00 and 294.2 hours of services. By attorney, this breaks down to $31,620.00 in fees for 105.4 hours of service by Mr. Nelson at $300.00 per hour, $32,137.50 in fees for 85.7 hours by Mr. Minier at $375.00 per hour, and $64,437.50 in fees for 103.1 hours of service by Mr. Ringstad at $625.00 per hour. Efpar asserted specific objections to the pretrial phase of the litigation.
As for the trial phase, in its original opposition, Efpar argued that the amount of time spent by Debtor's attorneys for trial preparation, i.e., over 200 hours by Mr. Minier, over 50 hours by Mr. Nelson and over 40 hours by Mr. Ringstad was clearly excessive and unreasonable because "[t]his action involved a simple claim," "[t]here were few witnesses in a short two day trial," "[t]here was no need for three attorneys to work on such a simple case," noting that the attorneys, Mr. Ringstad in particular, "spent a substantial time duplicating time already spent." Opposition at 16-17.
With respect to the trial, Efpar argued in its original opposition as an example of duplication of effort that "Mr. Minier spent the most time preparing for the trial and then Mr. Ringstad spent for example 10.50 [hours] on December 17, 2014 reviewing the declarations and exhibit[s] that Mr. Minier had already prepared and reviewed." Id. at 17. In its supplemental opposition, Efpar argued that the fees charged by Debtor's counsel were objectionable on grounds of duplication of effort because Debtor's counsel was "utilizing three different attorneys to perform duplicative work." Supplemental Opposition at 17. In elaborating on this point, Efpar argued, "In particular, the bulk of the case was prepared by attorney Chris Minier. His efforts included the duplication of work by attorney Bryan Nelson. Mr. Minier's billings were $137,625. Mr. Nelson's billings were $57,150. Both individuals had their work supervised, corrected and in some cases redone by attorney Todd Ringstad." Id.
As previously noted, in the supplemental reply to Efpar's opposition asserting that the fees are excessive and clearly unreasonable, Debtor's defense of the fees billed in the trial phase of the litigation is set forth in the Supplemental Reply at 21-27 and Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereto discussing the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh of eleven of Debtor's fee categories: (8) preparation of Debtor's trial brief and related matters (totaling 55.5 hours and $21,027.50 in fees); (9) motions in limine (totaling 22.2 hours and $8,067.50 in fees); (10) attending the trial, preparing objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits, and related matters (totaling 119.0 hours and $59,112.50 in fees); and (11) post-trial matters (totaling 104.4 hours and $39,987.50 in fees).
As for the prior two phases of the litigation, law and motion and pretrial preparation, Debtor's justification of the time spent by its lawyers for the third phase of the litigation for trial was set forth in the listing of the tasks performed by them in these categories:
Category 8 (Preparing Debtor's Trial Brief): research and drafting Debtor's trial brief and several related matters, including reviewing documents in furtherance of preparing of the trial brief, conducting additional research on Debtor's previously asserted defenses, research on new defenses that may be applicable based on developed facts, resolving the lack of a deadline for parties to file their trial briefs, including communicating with court staff and Efpar's counsel on this, drafting a stipulation and proposed order to resolve this issue.
Category 9 (Motions in Limine): research and drafting Debtor's three motions in limine and related declarations to exclude various evidence sought to be introduced by Efpar, reviewing Efpar's motion in limine to exclude introduction of evidence by Debtor and Efpar's oppositions to Debtor's motions in limine, communicating with Efpar's counsel regarding these motions.
Category 10: (Attending Trial and Objecting to Efpar's Evidence): conducting legal research regarding several different issues pertaining to the admissibility of certain evidence at trial; analyzing various issues to develop trial strategy and to identify matters needing to be proved at trial; analyzing Efpar's trial exhibits and direct testimony trial declarations, and drafting extensive evidentiary objections to same; preparing the Debtor's trial exhibits and trial exhibit binders; reviewing deposition transcripts of various witnesses for use at trial and marking deposition transcripts; communicating with the Debtor's principals and special litigation counsel regarding trial; communicating with the Debtor's witnesses regarding the trial and to prepare them for cross-examination; reviewing legal authorities in preparation for trial; analyzing evidentiary objections filed by Efpar to the Debtor's trial declarations and exhibits; communicating with Efpar's counsel regarding the conduct of the trial, the production of witnesses and the order of witness cross-examination; analyzing Efpar's trial declarations to prepare for cross-examination of Efpar's witnesses and preparation of notes and strategy for cross-examination; preparing of pleading binders and other documents for use at trial; reviewing Efpar's responses and supplemental responses to discovery requests to ascertain admissions made by Efpar, and preparation of documents summarizing admissions for use at trial; attending three days of trial (including closing arguments); preparing for closing arguments, including reviewing audio recording of the first two days of trial and preparation of PowerPoint presentation on legal issues and various items of damages claimed by Efpar.
Category 11: (Post-Trial Matters) research and drafting the Debtor's 24 pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, including reviewing the audio recording of the trial and preparing a time log of key trial testimony of other events, reviewing Efpar's 47-page proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, researching the extensive authorities cited therein, drafting Debtor's 30-page objection to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and reviewing Efpar's objections to Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The court generally agrees with Efpar that the time spent by Debtor's counsel in the trial litigation phase of this case was excessive and that not all the time billed was reasonably necessary
The court does not see how 294.2 hours of attorney time resulting in $128,195.00 in fees were reasonably necessary in the trial phase of the litigation to participate in the trial of this contested matter of Debtor's motion objecting to Efpar's breach of contract claim to trial and to prepare and submit post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law requested by the court.
Among the tasks listed for the trial phase of the litigation were extraneous tasks relating to research and review of documents from the state court litigation, such as whether case law cited by Efpar in the state court litigation was applicable, and performance of administrative tasks which could have been performed by lower cost nonattorney legal assistants, such as communicating with court staff and opposing counsel's staff regarding filing deadlines, preparing and filing stipulations and proposed orders resolving any disputes, preparation of litigation binders. In the court's view, what needed to be done to try the case and prepare and submit the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were the following tasks: prepare a trial brief, prepare questions for examination of the witnesses, attend the trial, prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and prepare objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
//
Drafting Debtor's Trial Brief
The attorney time and fees billed for preparing Debtor's trial brief for the trial of the Efpar claim objection and related matters of 55.5 hours of attorney time and $21,027.50 in fees are excessive. As previously stated, Debtor listed the following tasks in this category including reviewing documents in furtherance of preparing of the trial brief, conducting additional research on Debtor's previously asserted defenses, research on new defenses that may be applicable based on developed facts, resolving the lack of a deadline for parties to file their trial briefs, including communicating with court staff and Efpar's counsel on this, drafting a stipulation and proposed order to resolve this issue. First, the court doubts the need for extensive research at this late stage of the litigation as claimed by Debtor since the issues involved in this case were simple and straightforward ones of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance. Second, a number of the tasks for the so-called related matters for the Debtor's trial listed in the above description are administrative tasks, such as communicating with court staff regarding filing deadlines and preparing stipulations regarding this, which should not have been performed by attorneys, but by lower rate clerical staff.
Time for attorneys for Debtor to research and draft a trial brief for Debtor was a reasonably necessary task, even though the filing of trial briefs is optional with this court. The time needed to research and draft a trial brief for this case involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have reasonably taken no more than 22 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 20 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($7,500.00), and 2 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($1,250.00), for review, totaling $8,750.00 in fees. In comparing Debtor's arguments in its original motion objecting to Efpar's claim and in its trial brief, the arguments were essentially the same, that is, Debtor had no liability for breach because the contract was terminated, it was excused from performance due to mutual mistake of law or impossibility, and that if Debtor breached the contract, Efpar has failed to prove its damages for loss of bargain, lost profits or for valuation based on the Dollar Tree Lease since that was not within the contemplated by the parties.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for researching and drafting Debtor's trial brief and related matters total $8,750.00 for 22 hours of attorney time.
Motions in Limine
The attorney time and fees billed for drafting Debtor's motions in limine to exclude Efpar's evidence and to oppose Efpar's motion in limine to exclude Debtor's evidence of 22.2 hours and $8,067.50 in fees are excessive.
Time for attorneys for Debtor to respond and oppose Efpar's motion in limine to exclude Debtor's evidence of a contractual breach or termination before the execution of the Second Amendment to the Sale Agreement by the parties was reasonably necessary. By its motion in limine, Efpar attempted to exclude Debtor's evidence of any contractual breach by Efpar of the original Sale Agreement or termination of the Sale Agreement by Debtor based on its theory that the contract as modified by the Second Amendment was in force. Efpar's motion in limine was not well-taken because as the court ruled, such evidence was relevant background and context for the overall dispute over contract interpretation and breach between the parties and went to the weight of the evidence. While ultimately Efpar was right in arguing that the contract as modified by the Second Amendment was enforceable and not terminated, Debtor was within its right to oppose the motion in limine. The time needed to research and draft an opposition to Efpar's motion in limine, which only involved a simple issue of evidence law relating to relevance, should have reasonably taken no more than 2 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 1.6 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($600.00), and 0.4 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($250.00), for review, totaling $850.00 in fees.
Debtor filed three motions in limine of its own, which were heard by the court, two of which were denied, and one was granted. The first motion was to exclude evidence relating to alleged damages from an oral loan commitment with SR Capital to finance Efpar's purchase of Debtor's real property. The second motion was to exclude the testimony of Brandon Michaels as an expert witness on valuation. The third motion was to exclude the testimony of Fred Efraim, one of Efpar's principals, as an expert witness on valuation.
Although the court denied the first motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the loan commitment damages because the evidence was relevant to Efpar's claim for damages, the court ultimately ruled in favor of Debtor on the issue because the loan commitment was for the attempted purchase of the subject property at the bankruptcy auction in the case and not related to the breach of the contract as modified by the Second Amendment. In the court's view, the motion in limine was reasonably necessary for Debtor to support its objection to Efpar's claim, and the court will allow reasonably necessary attorney time to research and draft this motion. The time needed to research and draft the motion in limine, which only involved a simple issue of contract law relating to the Statute of Frauds, should have reasonably taken no more than 2 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 1.6 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($600.00), and 0.4 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($250.00), for review, totaling $850.00 in fees.
Debtor's second and third motions in limine were to exclude the testimony of Efpar's valuation witnesses, Brandon Michaels and Fred Efraim, as not qualified as expert witnesses. The court denied the motion in limine as to Mr. Michaels since he was qualified to testify on real estate valuation as a real estate agent. The court has reservations about whether filing this motion was reasonably necessary since Mr. Michaels was minimally qualified to testify as a valuation expert, but will allow some attorney time as reasonably necessary to draft the motion. The court also notes that attorney time was already spent and billed for drafting evidentiary objections to Mr. Michaels's trial declaration, so only minimal attorney time was needed to research and draft the motion in limine to exclude his testimony, which also involved only a simple issue of evidence law regarding qualification of an expert witness. The time needed to research and draft the motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Mr. Michaels as a valuation expert, which only involved a simple issue of evidence law relating to qualifications of an expert witness, should have reasonably taken no more than 1 hour of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 0.8 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($300.00), and 0.2 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($125.00), for review, totaling $425.00 in fees.
The court granted the motion in limine as to Mr. Efraim since he was not qualified to testify on real estate valuation as a real estate investor and developer. The court will allow some attorney time as reasonably necessary to draft the motion, but also notes that as for Mr. Efraim, attorney time was already spent and billed for drafting evidentiary objections to Mr. Efraim's trial declaration, so only minimal attorney time was needed to research and draft the motion in limine to exclude his testimony, which also involved only a simple issue of evidence law regarding qualification of an expert witness. The time needed to research and draft the motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Mr. Efraim as a valuation expert, which only involved a simple issue of evidence law relating to qualifications of an expert witness, should have reasonably taken no more than 1 hour of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 0.8 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($300.00), and 0.2 hour by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($125.00), for review, totaling $425.00 in fees.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for researching and drafting, and responding to, motions in limine total $2,550.00 for 6 hours of attorney time.
Attending Trial
The attorney time and fees billed for attending the trial and preparing objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits and related matters for the Efpar claim objection dispute of 112.9 hours and $59,112.50 in fees are excessive. As previously stated, Debtor listed the following tasks in this category, including conducting legal research regarding several different issues pertaining to the admissibility of certain evidence at trial; analyzing various issues to develop trial strategy and to identify matters needing to be proved at trial; analyzing Efpar's trial exhibits and direct testimony trial declarations, and drafting extensive evidentiary objections to same; preparing the Debtor's trial exhibits and trial exhibit binders; reviewing deposition transcripts of various witnesses for use at trial and marking deposition transcripts; communicating with the Debtor's principals and special litigation counsel regarding trial; communicating with the Debtor's witnesses regarding the trial and to prepare them for cross-examination; reviewing legal authorities in preparation for trial; analyzing evidentiary objections filed by Efpar to the Debtor's trial declarations and exhibits; communicating with Efpar's counsel regarding the conduct of the trial, the production of witnesses and the order of witness cross-examination; analyzing Efpar's trial declarations to prepare for cross-examination of Efpar's witnesses and preparation of notes and strategy for cross-examination; preparing of pleading binders and other documents for use at trial; reviewing Efpar's responses and supplemental responses to discovery requests to ascertain admissions made by Efpar, and preparation of documents summarizing admissions for use at trial; attending three days of trial (including closing arguments); preparing for closing arguments, including reviewing audio recording of the first two days of trial and preparation of PowerPoint presentation on legal issues and various items of damages claimed by Efpar.
Most of these tasks listed by Debtor's counsel regarding trial and related matters are stated verbatim. Although Debtor states a multitude of tasks in preparing for and attending the trial in this contested matter, the time claimed for these tasks is excessive in light of the simple and straightforward nature of this matter involving a breach of contract by Debtor and resulting damages to Efpar.
Time for attorneys for Debtor to prepare for and participate in trial were reasonably necessary tasks, but the time needed to prepare the case for trial and try the case involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law in this relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have not been extensive or complicated, and thus, the time charged is excessive. The court will allow fees for a reasonable amount of time for Debtor's counsel to prepare and try the case regarding the contract formation, negotiation and performance, including Debtor's breach, and the bases for Efpar's claim of damages for breach of contract. In order to prepare this contested matter for trial and conduct the trial, Debtor's counsel needed to prepare Debtor's trial exhibits (and trial declarations, which are discussed in another section), and review Efpar's exhibits and trial declarations and prepare written objections thereto. Debtor's actual trial counsel needed to prepare for trial by familiarizing himself with the evidence offered by Debtor and Efpar and attend the trial, including closing argument. The court determines that it was reasonably necessary for work of Debtor's counsel to prepare for these tasks, and time will be allowed for such.
Excessive time is claimed for reviewing and preparing "extensive" objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits. The court has reviewed Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits, which were not numerous, three trial declarations and 18 trial exhibits. Debtor's objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits were not extensive, and they needed not to be. Debtor only objected to two of Efpar's trial exhibits, 7 specific objections to Exhibit 17 and one objection to Exhibit 18. Debtor objected to 8 items in the trial declaration of Brandon Michaels, Efpar's real estate agent valuation expert witness, on various grounds. Debtor objected to 3 items in the trial declaration of Sean Rahbar, one of Efpar's principals, regarding alleged damages. Debtor objected to 11 items in the trial declaration of Fred Ephraim, one of Efpar's principals, regarding Debtor's breach and his valuation opinion of the subject real property in relation to Efpar's damages. Given the limited number of Debtor's objections to Efpar's evidence, it really cannot be said that such objections were "extensive" to justify the time charged to prepare such objections.
Excessive time is claimed for communicating with various parties, including Debtor's principals, Debtor's special trial counsel and Efpar's counsel. The time entries reflect numerous communications in telephone conferences, drafting email correspondence and "detailed" written correspondence with these parties. Debtor's counsel has not satisfactorily explained the reasonableness and necessity of such communicating involving thousands of dollars of fee billing. Since the issues for trial were relatively simple and straightforward contract issues of contract breach and breach damages, it is difficult to justify the extensive communicating by Debtor's counsel with Debtor's insiders, Debtor's special litigation counsel and Efpar's counsel. For the most part, the facts regarding Debtor's breach of contract were undisputed, and mostly stipulated to. The main disputes in this contested matter related to Efpar's claims of damages for Debtor's contractual dispute. In this contested matter, there was not much on Debtor's side to discuss because it was up to Efpar as the nonbreaching party to establish its damages from Debtor's breach with its evidence. There was not much reason to have extensive communications with any party for this. Moreover, substantial time was billed by the senior associate attorney, Mr. Minier, for otherwise preparing Debtor's case for trial. It was not reasonably necessary for Mr. Minier to do much of this work since he was not the attorney who tried the case for Debtor, and such work is duplicative of Mr. Ringstad, who actually tried the case. A number of the tasks billed by Mr. Minier for conducting trial and related matters are administrative in nature and should be not billed at attorney rates, including preparing trial exhibit binders, preparation of stipulations to extend deadlines to file the pretrial stipulation subpoenas, preparing deposition exhibits, contacting potential witnesses regarding scheduling of testimony.
Substantial time was also billed by the junior attorney, Mr. Nelson, for preparing the case for trial, even though he was not the trial attorney, and after the court's review of his billing entries for trial preparation, the court determines that his work was not necessary. Mr. Nelson billed substantial time for researching the admissibility of evidence, including review of the admissibility of deposition transcripts or testimony (2.1 hours on December 4 and 8, 2014), the admissibility of expert witness testimony of a real estate developer or agent (4.8 hours on December 4 and 5, 2014), and the admissibility of answers to interrogatories (0.5 hour on December 17, 2014). None of this work was reasonably necessary because an experienced trial attorney like Mr. Ringstad would have known whether this evidence was admissible or not without the need for this research. That is, Mr. Ringstad would have known that generally, deposition testimony and answers to interrogatories are inadmissible hearsay, unless there is an exception, such as admissions of a party opponent, Fed. R. Evid. 801 et seq., the attorney who actually tried the case, and that the admissibility of expert witness testimony on valuation would have depended on whether the purported expert witness had the training and/or experience to qualify as an expert and had used scientifically valid methods of valuation, Fed. R. Evid. 702 (the real estate agent, yes, but the developer, no). Mr. Nelson's research was not reasonably necessary.
Mr. Nelson billed substantial time for substantive legal research in the late stages of the case right before trial, including research of waiver of breach (0.5 hour on December 8, 2014) and nonmaterial breaches under California law (1.0 hours on December 8, 2014). None of this work was reasonably necessary because this was at the late stage of the case right before trial and the issues of nonmaterial breach were known or should have been known long before trial.
Mr. Nelson billed substantial time for analyzing issues for trial, assisting at trial or "reviewing" documents at trial, including "analyze trial strategies and possible motion for judgment on partial findings" (0.3 hour on December 11, 2014), "analyze Efpar trial issues" (0.3 hour on December 16, 2014), "assisting with trial preparation" (0.8 hour on December 17, 2014)(vague), "review tentative ruling on Efpar claim objection" (0.1 hour on December 18, 2018)(vague), "analyze issues arising at first day of trial on Efpar claim objection" (0.3 hour on December 18, 2018), "review Efpar's supplement to the joint pretrial stipulation and order" (0.1 hour on December 18, 2014), "review closing argument materials re Efpar objection" (0.2 hour on January 20, 2015), "analyze issues re closing arguments" (0.2 hours on January 20, 2015), "assist with preparation for closing arguments" (0.9 hour on January 20, 2015), "analyze issues re Power Point presentation for closing argument re Efpar claim objection" and related telephone calls to the court clerk (0.3 hour on January 20, 2015). None of this work was reasonably necessary because there was no need for Mr. Nelson to analyze, review or assist for trial since such work duplicated the effort of Mr. Ringstad, the attorney who actually tried the case and the purposes of the work claimed in these entries are vague and do not show that the work was reasonably necessary. Therefore, the court does not allow any of the time charged for Mr. Nelson's services relating to the trial.
The time needed for Debtor's counsel to review Efpar's trial exhibits and witness trial declarations in this case involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have reasonably taken no more than 10 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 8 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($3,000.00), and 2 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour ($1,250.00), for review, totaling $4,250.00 in fees.
The time needed for Debtor's counsel, Mr. Minier, to "communicate" with Debtor's principals, Debtor's special litigation counsel and Efpar's trial counsel regarding trial preparation should have been minimal, and should have been handled by nonattorney staff for administrative matters, such as coordinating scheduling of witnesses or extending deadlines for trial filings, and should have reasonably taken no more than 4 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 4 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, at $375 per hour ($1,500.00), totaling $1,500.00 in fees.
The time needed for Debtor's actual trial counsel, Mr. Ringstad, to review trial exhibits and witness trial declarations and prepare his witness examination and closing argument in this case involving simple and straightforward issues of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance should have reasonably taken no more than 38.3 hours of attorney time, and in this regard, the court will allow 38.3 hours by Mr. Ringstad, the supervising partner, at $625 per hour (10 hours for trial preparation, including reviewing anticipated trial testimony and trial exhibits and witness examination preparation; some of these tasks were performed in reviewing Debtor's trial objections drafted by Mr. Minier, and thus, already considered), 10.5 hours for attending the first day of trial, 8.4 hours for attending the second day of trial, 4.0 hours for preparing closing argument and 5.4 hours for attending closing argument), totaling $23,937.50 in fees.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for attending the trial and preparing objections to Efpar's trial declarations and exhibits total $29,687.50 for 52.3 hours of attorney time.
Post Trial Matters
The attorney time and fees billed for post-trial matters consisting primarily of preparing Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the trial of the Efpar claim objection and preparing Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of 104.2 hours of attorney time and $39,987.50 in fees are excessive. As previously stated, Debtor listed the following tasks in this category including research and drafting the Debtor's 24 pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, including reviewing the audio recording of the trial and preparing a time log of key trial testimony of other events, reviewing Efpar's 47-page proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, researching the extensive authorities cited therein, drafting Debtor's 30-page objection to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and reviewing Efpar's objections to Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The court has reviewed the work performed by Debtor's counsel on the post-trial matters primarily preparing Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and reviewing and objecting to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and determines that the time spent of 104.2 hours of attorney time for which fees of $39,987.50, are not justified as reasonably necessary.
Excessive time is claimed for preparing Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due to the involvement of three attorneys, including one relatively inexperienced attorney. The matter was tried by Mr. Ringstad, the partner of R&S and the senior attorney of the litigation team, and presumably, he handled the examination of the witnesses and the admissibility of exhibits offered by both parties, and presumably, he took notes of the proceedings. However, substantial time was billed by the senior associate attorney, Mr. Minier, for reviewing and analyzing the audio recording of the trial and preparing a log record for the recording, researching and analyzing the issues at trial and preparing the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. It was not reasonably necessary for Mr. Minier to do this work since the attorney who tried the case, Mr. Ringstad, was reasonably familiar with the trial proceedings to be able to assist in the preparation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, having been present in the courtroom and taken notes of the proceedings.
Substantial time was also billed by the junior attorney, Mr. Nelson, for reviewing the evidentiary record, researching and analyzing the issues at trial and preparing the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which was not necessary. Mr. Nelson billed substantial time for reviewing the record that presumably had been reviewed by Mr. Ringstad before the trial to prepare for trial or or during trial, including review of Debtor's appraiser's declaration (4.0 hours), the Dollar Tree Lease (0.7 hour). None of this work was reasonably necessary because it duplicated the effort of Mr. Ringstad, the attorney who actually tried the case. It might be argued by Debtor that Mr. Nelson needed to review these materials in order to draft Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which seems to the court inefficient because the trial attorney should have given directions about proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after trying the case if he needed assistance in drafting them or done them himself.
Looking at the actual work product of Debtor's counsel in the 24-page Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and 30-page Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hard to see how so many hours of attorney time, over 100 hours, were spent in preparing these documents. The court notes that the supporting authorities for Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were known to counsel before trial, which were primarily based on the stipulated and admitted facts in the joint pretrial stipulation approved by the court, the trial declaration of Debtor's principal, Michelle Orh, and the trial exhibits of the parties, though there were a few, and only a few, references to the trial record itself.
The court reviews and analyzes the Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in detail to make this point clear. Debtor's proposed findings of fact consists of 62 numbered paragraphs, and its proposed conclusions of law consist of 23 numbered paragraphs. The court first reviews and analyzes the 62 numbered paragraphs of Debtor's proposed findings of fact: ¶¶ 1-6 pertain to jurisdiction, venue and notice which are legal in nature and undisputed; ¶ 7 describes the business of Debtor based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration; ¶ 8 describes the subject real property based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration and the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation; ¶¶ 9-11 describe the history of formation of the contract with Efpar based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration, the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation and Debtor's trial exhibits; ¶ 12 describes the purchase offer and contract of the subject real property with another purchaser, David Zander, based on the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation and Debtor's Trial Exhibit 5; ¶¶ 13-20 describe the alleged cancellation by Debtor of the contract with Efpar based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration, the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation and Debtor's trial exhibits; ¶¶ 21-28 describe the Second Amendment to the contract with Efpar based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration, the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation and Debtor's trial exhibits; ¶¶ 29-31 describe Debtor's bankruptcy case filing and the bankruptcy sale of the subject real property based on Ms. Orh's trial declaration and the stipulated facts in the joint pretrial stipulation; and the remaining paragraphs, ¶¶ 32-62, relate to Efpar's claim for damages based primarily on Efpar's trial exhibit, particularly Efpar's Trial Exhibit 17, ¶ 32 (describing the pleadings), ¶¶ 33-40 (addressing Efpar's claim of "loss of bargain damages" addressed by Ms. Orh's trial declaration that Debtor had no knowledge of the Dollar Tree Lease), ¶ 41 (addressing Efpar's claim of "lost profits"), ¶ 42 (addressing Efpar's claim of architectural plan costs), ¶ 43 (addressing Efpar's claim of environmental assessment costs), ¶ 44 (addressing Efpar's claim of asbestos testing costs), ¶ 45 (addressing Efpar's claim of demolition and restoration services costs), ¶ 46 (addressing Efpar's claim of rental costs of scissors lift for destructive testing), ¶ 47 (addressing Efpar's claim of wall coring costs), ¶ 48 (addressing Efpar's claim of deputy inspector costs), ¶ 49 (addressing Efpar's claim of electrical engineering and plan costs), ¶ 50 (addressing Efpar's claim of Department of Water and Power new service application and engineering costs), ¶ 51 (addressing Efpar's claim of legal services costs), ¶ 52 (addressing Efpar's claim of additional legal services costs), ¶ 53 (addressing Efpar's claim of court-ordered legal services costs), ¶ 54 (addressing Efpar's claim of first deposit of $50,000 on contract conceded by Debtor), ¶ 55 (addressing Efpar's claim of second deposit of $50,000 on contract conceded by Debtor), ¶ 56 (addressing Efpar's claim of loan fee costs to PPI Capital), ¶ 57 (addressing Efpar's claim of interest costs to PPI Capital), ¶¶ 58-60 (addressing Efpar's claim of loan commitment fee and minimum interest costs to SR Capital), ¶ 61 (addressing Efpar's claim of the value of its principals' time working on the contract), and ¶ 62 (summarizing Debtor's position on Efpar's claim of damages, conceding $100,000 for the first and second money deposits and denying the claim for other damages). The court does not see that the time spent was necessary since the only time needed was for drafting the proposed findings of fact based on a limited portion of the trial evidence consisting of the stipulated facts of the joint pretrial stipulation, Ms. Orh's declaration, the trial exhibits and brief references to the testimony of the appraisers of the parties and Efpar's principals, Mr. Efraim and Mr. Rahbar, on limited subjects.
The court first reviews and analyzes the 23 numbered paragraphs of Debtor's conclusions of law: ¶¶ 1-3 addressing burden of proof which was previously discussed in Debtor's original motion at 9 and in its trial brief at 9-10; ¶¶ 4-6 addressing Debtor's impossibility defense which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 20-24; ¶¶ 7-11 addressing Debtor's mutual mistake of law defense which was previously discussed in Debtor's original motion at 10-12 and in its trial brief at 10-14; ¶¶ 12-20 addressing Efpar's claim of loss of bargain damages which was previously discussed in Debtor's original motion at 12-15 and in its trial brief at 24-28; ¶¶ 21-22 addressing Efpar's claim of lost profits damages which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 28-30; and ¶ 23 summarizing Debtor's legal arguments. Although Debtor claims additional time spent by its attorneys for legal research and drafting, the court does not see how this was reasonably necessary since the proposed legal conclusions offered by Debtor were raised in its prior pleadings, including its original motion and its trial brief. That is, it should not have taken much time for Debtor's counsel to incorporate Debtor's prior legal conclusions in prior pleadings into its proposed conclusions of law.
The court also reviews and analyzes the Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law consist of 12 numbered paragraphs with multiple subparagraphs over 30 pages of text, and many of the objections incorporate arguments made by Debtor in its prior pleadings, including its original motion, its trial brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court reviews and analyzes the 12 numbered paragraphs of Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law: ¶ 1 addressing Efpar's proposed conceded fact that Debtor conceded a breach of contract; Debtor's position was assuming arguendo Efpar proved a breach, the date of breach was June 27, 2012, the date for escrow closing, as discussed in its trial brief at 25; ¶¶ 2-3 addressing Efpar's proposed factual findings on its claim for damages from loan commitment fee and minimum interest costs from SR Capital which was previously discussed in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 58-60; ¶¶ 4 and 7 addressing Efpar's factual findings and conclusions of law on its claim for damages from loss of bargain which was previously discussed in Debtor's original motion at 12-14, its trial brief at 24-28 and in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 33-40 and proposed conclusions of law at ¶¶ 12-20; ¶ 5 addressing Efpar's proposed conclusions of law on Debtor's cancellation defense which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 10-11 and in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 13-20 and proposed conclusions of law at ¶¶ 7-11; ¶ 6 addressing Efpar's proposed conclusions of law on its claim for damages from lost profits which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 28-30 and in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶ 41 and proposed conclusions of law at ¶¶ 21-22; ¶ 8 addressing Efpar's proposed conclusions of law on its claim for damages from loan commitment fee and minimum interest costs from SR Capital which was previously discussed in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 58-60 and its proposed conclusions of law at ¶ 23; ¶ 9 addressing Efpar's proposed conclusions of law on its claim for consequential damages for various costs that it incurred which was previously discussed in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 42-61 and its proposed conclusions of law at ¶ 23; ¶¶ 10 and 12 addressing Efpar's proposed conclusions of law on Debtor's impossibility defense which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 20-24 and in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 58-60 and proposed conclusions of law at ¶¶ 4-6; ¶ 10 addressing Efpar's mathematical computations of its damages in its proposed conclusions of law which was previously discussed in Debtor's trial brief at 24-31 and in Debtor's proposed findings of fact at ¶¶ 32-62 and proposed conclusions of law at ¶¶ 12-23. This review and analysis of Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law further indicates that Debtor's objections were based on arguments it already prepared and asserted in its prior pleadings, which undermine its argument that further extensive research and drafting was needed to prepare these objections. As stated previously, the court doubts the need for extensive research at this late stage of the litigation as claimed by Debtor since the issues involved in this case were simple and straightforward ones of contract law relating to contract negotiation, contract formation and contract performance and had already been researched and drafted for the most part in prior pleadings.
Time for attorneys for Debtor on post-trial matters to review the evidentiary record at trial, to draft Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to review Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to draft objections thereto were reasonably necessary tasks, but the time charged by Debtor's attorneys is not all reasonably necessary and is excessive. The time needed to review the evidentiary record to review the evidentiary record at trial, to draft Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to review Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and prepare objections thereto should have reasonably taken no more than 44 hours of attorney time.
The court finds that it would have been reasonably necessary that Mr. Ringstad review his notes as trial counsel to strategize and direct his senior associate attorney, Mr. Minier, to draft the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on behalf of Debtor if he, Mr. Ringstad, was not drafting them himself since he was the actual trial counsel. It would have been efficient for him to provide guidance and direction to his associate attorneys in assisting him in drafting the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issues for trial were laid out in the statement of issues in the joint pretrial stipulation of the parties and in the trial briefs of the parties, and Mr. Ringstad should have reviewed what evidence came in, both in testimony and exhibits, on the issues for trial. It is not efficient or reasonably necessary for Mr. Minier or Mr. Nelson, who did not attend the trial, to listen to the audio recording of the entire trial as they evidently did and are charging for, or to read the trial declarations and review the exhibits which were already done by Mr. Ringstad, Debtor's trial counsel, who reviewed these materials in his pretrial preparation and/or at trial when presented at trial, and who has already charged for such pretrial preparation and for trial attendance. For Mr. Minier and Mr. Nelson to charge for becoming familiar with the trial record is truly duplication of effort of the actual trial counsel, for which time should not be reasonably charged, as this is indeed overcharging due to duplicative effort. As stated above, based on the court's analysis, the court determines that the time charged is excessive, given that much of the legal research and argument development for Debtor had already been accomplished and charged for in preparing prior pleadings starting with Debtor's original motion, the issues had been known and developed well before trial, and the evidentiary record upon which Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and its objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was mostly developed, uncomplicated and fixed before trial, and notably, numerous stipulated facts of the parties' joint pretrial stipulation, the unobjected-to trial exhibits of the parties and the trial declarations of the parties' principals and valuation expert witnesses filed well before trial. There was not much evidentiary record from the trial to pore over anew as the number of hours of attorney time charged by Debtor's counsel suggests. Moreover, Debtor's proposed conclusions of law were arguments that were first raised in prior pleadings, including Debtor's original motion and the trial brief, and essentially, the conclusions of law are those arguments reviewed and refined based on the trial record. It should not have taken long to accomplish this task since it was not writing the arguments of law from scratch.
The court will allow 4 hours by Mr. Ringstad, Debtor's trial counsel, at $625 per hour ($2,500.00), for review of his trial notes, the trial record and strategizing with his associate attorney, Mr. Minier, in drafting Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 2 hours for review of the draft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, at $625 per hour ($1,250.00). The court will allow 20 hours by Mr. Minier, the senior associate attorney, for drafting Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of laws for reviewing the draft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, at $375 per hour ($7,500.00).
The court will allow 2 hours by Mr. Ringstad, Debtor's trial counsel, at $625 per hour ($1,250.00), for review of his trial notes, the trial record and strategizing with his associate attorney, Mr. Minier, in drafting Debtor's objections to Debtor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 2 hours for review of the draft objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, at $625 per hour ($1,250.00). The court will allow 5 hours by Mr. Minier in drafting Debtor's objections to Efpar's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and for review of the draft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, at $375 per hour ($1,875.00).
No time is authorized for Mr. Nelson, the junior associate attorney, since it does not appear that his work on post-trial matter was reasonably necessary because there is no purpose in having him review the trial record since he was not the actual trial counsel and it would duplicate the efforts of the actual trial counsel for him to review the record and there is no purpose in having him conduct further legal research since the legal research for the matter was already accomplished in preparing Debtor's original motion and its trial brief.
The attorneys' fees reasonably necessary for post-trial matters on behalf of Debtor total $15,625.00 for 35 hours of attorney time.
III. DEBTOR'S BILL OF COSTS
The court has reviewed Debtor's Bill of Costs, ECF 412, for Debtor's costs in the amount of $7,385.89, including fees for service of the summons and complaint, witness fees, copying expenses and deposition costs, and determines that these costs are appropriate and therefore allows Debtor's Bill of Costs in full.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part Debtor's motion for attorneys' fees, allowing the amount of $123,314.58 in fees, and approves Debtor's bill of costs, allowing the amount of $7,385.89.
| Category | Allowed Amount |
|---|---|
| Law and Motion | $25,125 |
| Pretrial Phase: | |
| Mediation | $3,458.33 |
| Pretrial Preparation | $14,750 |
| Discovery | $17,506.25 |
| Preparing Debtor's Trial Declarations | $5,862.50 |
| Trial Phase: | |
| Drafting Debtor's Trial Brief | $8,750 |
| Motions in Limine | $2,550 |
| Attending Trial | $29,687.50 |
| Post Trial Matters | $15,625 |
| TOTAL: | $123,314.58 |
///
This memorandum decision constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A separate final order on Debtor's Fee Motion and Bill of Costs is being entered concurrently providing that Efpar must pay the attorneys' fees and costs awarded to Debtor on the motion and bill of costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
###
Date: July 13, 2018
/s/_________
Robert Kwan
United States Bankruptcy Judge
APPENDIX
1. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 2 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Investigation of Efpar's Claim, Obtaining and Reviewing Documents Pertaining to the Claim, and Researching Legal Issues Bearing on the Validity of the Claim
• Draft memo regarding measure of damages for breach of contract
? Time: 1.4
? Total: $420
• Time spent discussing possible settlement with Efpar and working on settlement
? Time: 2.7
? Total: $1,012.50
• Analyze and Review Proof of Claim
? Time: 2.8
? Total: $900
• Correspondence to Efpar regarding damages
? Time: 1
? Total: $375
• Conferring and Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) related to Efpar's alleged claim
? Time: 7.5
? Total: $2,865
• Research and analysis regarding contract issues
? Time: 16.6
? Total: $5,165
• Research and analysis regarding damages issues
? Time: 10.3
? Total: $3,157.50
• Research and analyze documents for preparation of claim objection
? Time: 22.8
? Total: $7,777.50
• Analyze issues and strategies related to claim objection
? Time: 9.7
? Total: $3,797.50
• Research of miscellaneous legal issues
? Time: 1.2
? Total: $450
• Work related to vendee lien issue
? Time: 4
? Total: $1,222.50
• Preparing notes regarding deposition transcript
? Time: 1
? Total: $375
• Miscellaneous tasks
? Time: 1.7
? Total: $547.50
• Vague Entry
? Time: .1
? Total: $30
• Double Billing
? Time: 1
? Total: $300
Total billed by R&S for Debtor's Fee Category 1 (Exhibit 2 to Supplemental Brief) for Investigation of Efpar's Claim , Obtaining and Reviewing Documents Pertaining to the Claim, and Researching Legal Issues Bearing on the Validity of the Claim: Time: 82.8 hours; Fees: $28,095.00
2. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 3 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Drafting Motion for an Order Disallowing Efpar's Claim and Related Documents:
• Drafting Claim Objection
? Time: 5.9
? Total: $1,875
• Revising Claim Objection
? Time: 28.9
? Total:$11,237.50
• Draft Declarations in support of Claim Objection
? Time: .8
? Total: $240
• Prepare Objection
? Time: 4
? Total: $2,500
• Finalize Objection
? Time: 2.5
? Total: $945
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 3 for Drafting Motion for an Order Disallowing Efpar's Claim and Related Documents: Time: 42.1 hours; Fees: $16 ,797.50
3. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 4 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Time Related to Responding to Efpar's Opposition:
• Analyze Opposition
? Time: 3.8
? Total: $1,305
• Research case law for Reply
? Time: 8.3
? Total: $3,112.50
• Draft Reply
? Time: 7
? Total: $2,602.50
• Review documents related to drafting Reply
? Time: 2.4
? Total: $885
• Correspondence with M. Orh regarding Debtor's Reply draft
? Time: .6
? Total: $225
• Draft evidentiary objections
? Time: 1.7
? Total: $737.50
• Review, revise, and finalize Reply
? Time: 5.6
? Total: $3,150
• Work on scheduling order
? Time: 3.8
? Total: $1,425
• Correspondence with Mr. Orh regarding mediation
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: 1.6
? Total: $600
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 4 for Time Related to Responding to Efpar's Opposition: Time: 35.3 hours; Fees: $14 ,230.00
4. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 5 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Court Ordered Mediation:
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with M. Orh
? Time: 2.2
? Total: $825
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) with Efpar's Counsel (S. Reiss & F. Simab)
? Time: 4.2
? Total: $1,625
• Review and analyze mediation documents
? Time: 1.5
? Total: $562.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with F. Adams (mediator) and his office
? Time: 2.6
? Total: $975
• Review and analyze mediation strategy
? Time: 2.3
? Total: $1,287.50
• Correspondence and conferring with Hsu
? Time: 1.4
? Total: $650
• Draft and revise Efpar mediation brief
? Time: 7.5
? Total: $2,982.50
• Drafting mediation order and related work
? Time: 3.1
? Total: $1,162.50
• Drafting stipulation to continue mediation and related work
? Time: 2.6
? Total: $975
• Preparation for mediation
? Time: 1.9
? Total: $1,012.50
• Miscellaneous entries
? Time: 12
? Total: $7,450
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 5 for Court Ordered Mediation: Time: 41.3 hours; Fees: $19 ,507.50
5. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 6 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Pre-Trial Preparation:
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing), conferring with Efpar's counsel, and miscellaneous work related to pretrial conferences
? Time: 5
? Total: $1,687.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with expert witnesses
? Time: 7.9
? Total: $3,187.50
• Drafting Joint Pre-Stipulation, and work related to drafting Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation
? Time: 25.5
? Total: $10,112.50
• Correspondence and conferring with opposing counsel regarding settlement
? Time: 1.6
? Total: $950
• Correspondence and conferring with others regarding settlement
? Time: 6.4
? Total: $3375
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) regarding continuing trial
? Time: 1.2
? Total: $450
• Conferring and correspondence (drafting and analyzing) regarding claim litigation and claim objection
? Time: 14.9
? Total: $5,550
• Preparing trial exhibits and worked related to preparing trial exhibits and witness lists
? Time: 4.4
? Total: $1,650
• Preparing and working on employment application
? Time: 4.8
? Total: $1,800
• Correspondence regarding trial exhibits and trial witnesses
? Time: .6
? Total: $225
• Conferring and corresponding with real estate expert
? Time: .9
? Total: $337.50
• Reviewing real estate experts/appraiser experts and related issues
? Time: 2.2
? Total: $1,150
• Research regarding state law issues (prevailing party and damages)
? Time: 5.6
? Total: $2,085
• Analyze trial issues and strategy
? Time: 3.6
? Total: $1,575
• Review documents and evidence in preparation for trial
? Time: 3.5
? Total: $1,237.50
• Conferring and corresponding regarding trial preparation
? Time: 1.4
? Total: $525
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: 2.3
? Total: $887.50
• Double Billing
? Time: .2
? Total: $75
• No Charge Entries
? Time: 1.1
? Total: $0
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 6 for Pre-Trial Preparation: Time: 91.8 hours; Fees: $36 ,785.00
6. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 7 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Discovery:
• Draft interrogatories and production requests
? Time: 11.6
? Total: $4,850
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) regarding stipulation to extend discovery deadline
? Time: 4.2
? Total: $1,625
• Draft stipulation to extend discovery request
? Time: 2.3
? Total: $862.50
• Researching and analyzing discovery issues related to Efpar's failure to comply
? Time: 2
? Total: $900
• Correspondence regarding failure to comply with discovery requests
? Time: 3.6
? Total: $1,350
• Correspondence with experts regarding depositions
? Time: 1
? Total: $375
• Correspondence with opposing counsel regarding depositions
? Time: 6.5
? Total: $2,437.50
• Correspondence with others regarding depositions
? Time: 2.1
? Total: $787.50
• Analyzing documents and preparing for depositions
? Time: 24.7
? Total: $9,665
• Preparing deposition notices and subpoenas
? Time: 9.1
? Total: $3,412.50
• Attending depositions
? Time: 18.3
? Total: $6,862.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) regarding document production
? Time: 1.5
? Total: $562.50
• Review produced documents and interrogatories
? Time: 6.6
? Total: $2,475
• Correspondence re: joint pre-trial order
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Review and research entry of court's orders
? Time: .4
? Total: $150
• Review and analyze issue related to service of deposition subpoenas
? Time: .4
? Total: $150
• Correspondence regarding meeting with M. Orh
? Time: .4
? Total: $150
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: .1.2
? Total: $525
• No Charge Entries
? Time: 2
? Total: $0
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 7 for Discovery: Time: 96.4 hours; Fees: $37 ,327.50
7. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 8 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Preparation of Debtor's Trial Declarations:
• Correspondence with B. Lofgren regarding trial declaration
? Time: 3.2
? Total: $1,200
• Analyze correspondence from B. Lofgren
? Time: 1
? Total: $375
• Correspondence with B. Lofgren's assistant
? Time: .9
? Total: $337.50
• Analyze documents for B. Lofgren trial declaration
? Time: 2.7
? Total: $1,012.50
• Draft B. Lofgren trial declaration
? Time: 3
? Total: $1,325
• Confer with I. Chae/Commerce Escrow
? Time: 1.6
? Total: $600
• Review/Analyze Correspondence and documents from R. Riemer
? Time: 1.2
? Total: $450
• Preparing trial declaration of M. Orh
? Time: 6.8
? Total: $2,900
• Drafting trial declaration of R. Riemer
? Time: 2.3
? Total: $987.50
• Prepare correspondence to R. Riemer
? Time: .3
? Total: $112.50
• Review and analyze correspondence and documents relating to M. Orh trial declaration
? Time: 1.3
? Total: $487.50
• Correspondence to M. Orh
? Time: .3
? Total: $112.50
• Draft Trial Declaration of I. Chae
? Time: .9
? Total: $337.50
• Telephone conference with M. Orh
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: .7
? Total: $262.50
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 8 for Preparation of Debtor's Trial Declarations: Time: 26.7 hours; Fees: $10 ,687.50
8. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 9 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Preparation of Debtor's Trial Brief and Related Matters:
• Draft Trial Brief
? Time: 31
? Total: $12,120
• Research and analysis of damages issue
? Time: 2.3
? Total: $690
• Research and analysis of contract enforceability defenses
? Time: 10.5
? Total: $3,667.50
• Review and analyze documents relating to trial brief
? Time: 3.6
? Total: $1,350
• Analyze issues regarding trial brief
? Time: .9
? Total: $270
• Work related to trial brief submission deadline
? Time: 1.5
? Total: $555
• Research legal authority regarding preparation of trial brief
? Time: 2.9
? Total: $1,087.50
• Review and analyze Efpar's trial brief
? Time: 2.8
? Total: $1,287.50
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 9 for Preparation of Debtor's Trial Brief and Related Matters: Time: 55.5 hours; Fees: $21 ,027.50
9. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 10 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Motions in Limine:
• Draft motion in limine regarding loan fee damages
? Time: 4.6
? Total: $1,640
• Draft motion in limine regarding valuation evidence from B. Michaels
? Time: 6.2
? Total: $1,965
• Draft motion in limine regarding valuation evidence from F. Efraim
? Time: 1.8
? Total: $607.50
• Research and analyze issue of loan fee damages
? Time: 1.6
? Total: $525
• Strategize regarding motion in limine
? Time: 1.1
? Total: 687.50
• Research and analyze Statute of Frauds
? Time: 1.4
? Total: $420
• Prepare motions for filing
? Time: .6
? Total: $180
• Analyze correspondence from Efpar and prepare correspondence to Efpar
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Review Efpar's Opposition
? Time: 1.6
? Total: $720
• Review motion in limine
? Time: .7
? Total: $262.50
• Miscellaneous entries
? Time: 1.5
? Total: $872.50
• No Charge Entries
? Time: .6
? Total: $0
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 10 for Motions in Limine: Time: 21.6 hours; Fees: $8 ,067.50
10. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 11 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Attending Trial, Preparing Objections to Efpar's Trial Declarations and Exhibits, and Related Matters:
• Research and analyze issue of admissibility of deposition transcripts
? Time: 2.1
? Total: $630
• Research and analyze issue of whether real estate agent can give expert opinion
? Time: 4.8
? Total: $1,440
• Research and analyze documents regarding objections to Efpar's Trial Exhibits and Declarations
? Time: 4.8
? Total: $1,817.50
• Draft objection to trial exhibits and trial declarations
? Time: 5.5
? Total: $2,337.50
• Prepare and review trial exhibits and transcripts
? Time: 12.1
? Total: $5,102.50
• Research contract law
? Time: 6.5
? Total: $3,575
• Conferring with Efpar's Counsel
? Time: .9
? Total: $337.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with B. Lofgren
? Time: 3
? Total: $1,125
• Analyze trial strategies and documents for trial
? Time: 24.1
? Total: $13,792.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with M. Orh
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Review documents filed by Efpar
? Time: 1
? Total: $517.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with R. Riemer
? Time: .5
? Total: $187.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with R. Hsu
? Time: .8
? Total: $500
• Preparation for closing argument
? Time: 20.2
? Total: $11,507.50
• Attend trial
? Time: 25.1
? Total: $15,687.50
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: .3
? Total: $105
• Vague Entry
? Time: .7
? Total: $262.50
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 11 for Attending Trial , Preparing Objections to Efpar's Trial Declarations and Exhibits, and Related Matters: Time: 112.9 hours; Fees: $59,112.50
11. Court's Task Break Down of Fees Billed by R&S in Exhibit 12 to Debtor's Supplemental Brief for Post-Trial Matters:
• Analysis of strategy and issues regarding proposed findings and conclusions of law
? Time: 4.3
? Total: $1,645
• Analysis of audio recording of trial
? Time: 18.1
? Total: $6,787.50
• Draft and revise proposed findings of fact
? Time: 21.5
? Total: $8,570
• Review and analyze Efpar's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law
? Time: 15.4
? Total: $5,627.50
• Draft objection to Efpar's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law
? Time: 25.3
? Total: $9,902.50
• Review and analyze Efpar's Objection to Debtor's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law
? Time: 2.2
? Total: $1,147.50
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with R. Hsu
? Time: .4
? Total: $175
• Correspondence (drafting and analyzing) and conferring with M. Orh
? Time: 2.7
? Total: $1,062.50
• Review and analyze court's memorandum of decision
? Time: 3.3
? Total: $1,192.50
• Review of trial testimony, declarations and other related documents
? Time: 6.5
? Total: $1,950
• Research regarding damages
? Time: 1.2
? Total: $360
• Miscellaneous Entries
? Time: 3.3
? Total: $1,567.50
Debtor's Supplemental Brief, ECF 432, Exhibit 3 at 59 has an identical billing entry: "Continue revising objection to Efpar Claim."
This task break down is derived from the billing entries in the table named "Correspondence and conferring re: Settlement" in the attached exhibit.
See footnote 3 above.
Debtor's Supplemental Brief, ECF 432, Exhibit 5 at 7 of Appendix Part 2 has an identical billing entry: "Draft correspondence to Efpar's counsel re issues re upcoming mediation and preparation of joint pre-trial order."
This task break down is derived from the billing entries in the table named "Correspondence re: Depositions" in the attached exhibit.
See footnote 6 above.
See footnote 6 above. --------
Total billed by R&S in Exhibit 12 for Post-Trial Matters: Time: 104.2 hours; Fees: $39 ,987.50
Supporting Tables for Court's Task Breakdown
(A) Draft Memo re: Measure of Damages for Breach of K
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2/11/2013 | BN | DRAFT MEMORANDUM RE MEASURE OFDAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TOSELL REAL PROPERTY | 0.3 | $300 | $90 |
| 2/12/2013 | BN | DRAFT MEMORADUM RE MEASURE OFDAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TOSELL REAL PROPERTY | 1.1 | $300 | $330 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/3/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S. REISS,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE ISSUES RECLAIM FILEDBY SAME, CASE FACTS, POSSIBLE SETTLEMENTOF RE SAME AND RE ISSUES RE STATUS OFDEBTOR'S SALE OF ITS REAL PROPERTY | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 7/11/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S. REISSDISCUSSING SETTLEMENT OF EFPAR'S CLAIMUPON CONCLUSION OF SALE OF PROPERTY, ANDRE ISSUES RE STATUS OF SALE OF PROPERTY ANDISSUES RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 7/29/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S. REISS,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE ISSUES RE RESOLVINGCLAIM OF SAME AND STATUS OF SALE OFDEBTOR'S REAL PROPERTY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS RESETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 8/14/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (THIRD) WITH S. REISSRE FACTS AND LEGAL THEORIES SURROUNDINGEFPAR'S PROOF OF CLAIM, ISSUES RE OTHERCLAIMS AGAINST BANKRUPTCY ESTATE, AND REPOSSIBLE SETTLEMENT OF EFPAR'S CLAIM | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 8/14/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S. REISS,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE ISSUES RENEGOTIATING SETTLEMENT RE CLAIM FILED BYSAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2013 | CAM | SECOND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S. REISSRE ISSUES RE SETTLING CLAIM FILED BY EFPARAND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/28/2013 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH S. REISS RE ONGOINGSETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN EFPARAND DEBTOR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/13/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE PROOF OF CLAIM FILEDBY EFPAR, DOCUMENTS ATTACHED THERETOAND STATE COURT LITIGATION PLEADINGS REINITIATING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WITHEFPAR RE ITS PROOF OF CLAIM AGAINST THEBANKRUPTCY ESTATE | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 1/7/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR'S PROOF OF CLAIM FORPOSSIBLE OBJECTION. | 1.6 | $300 | $480.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR'S PROOF OF CLAIM FORPOSSIBLE OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR'S PROOF OF CLAIM FORPOSSIBLE OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/29/2013 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISS,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE CASE LAW DECISIONRE PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELL REAL PROPERTYRE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/29/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, S. REISS, RE DAMAGES CLAIMS OFSAME RE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITHSAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/10/2013 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU RELEGAL AUTHORITY RE DAMAGES AVAILABLE TOEFPAR FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTTO SELL REAL PROPERTY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/10/2013 | CAM | DRAFT SECOND E-MAIL TO R. HSU RE DAMAGESBEING CLAIMED BY EFPAR | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/10/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILSFROM R. HSU RE DAMAGES BEING CLAIMED BYEFPAR | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/4/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM S. REISS RE ALLEGE CLAIM OF EFPAR ANDSETTLEMENT RE SAME | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/4/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM S. REISS, COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE ISSUESRE CASE LAW DISALLOWING RECOVERY OFLOST RENT CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| BREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELL REALPROPERTY; DRAFT REPLY E-MAIL TO SAME RESAME AND RE POTENTIAL MEDIATION REDISPUTED CLAIM FILED BY SAME | |||||
| 9/4/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM M. ORH RE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONSWITH EFPAR FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY REANALYZING DISPUTED CLAIM OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/5/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM M. ORH RE ISSUES RE SUPPLEMENTALESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN DEBTORAND EFPAR RE ANALYZING CLAIM FILED BYSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/5/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM R. HSU RE ISSUES RE LEGAL ANDFACTUAL THEORIES ESPOUSED BY EFPAR'SCOUNSE RE DISPUTED CLAIM FILED BY SAME;ANALYZE ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/10/2013 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU,DEBTOR'S SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL, REISSUES DISPUTED CLAIM HELD BY EFPAR ANDFACTS RE SAME, AND RE LITIGATION CLAIMSHELD BY ESTATE AGAINST DEBTOR'S FORMERATTORNEY AND REAL ESTATE BROKER ANDDOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO SAME. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/10/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM J. LIU REANALYZING CLAIMS OF EFPAR AGAINSTDEBTOR. | 0.3 | $275 | $112.50 |
| 9/11/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM R. HSU RE ISSUES RE LEGAL THEORIESRELIED UPON BY EFPAR IN SUPPORT OF ITSCLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/11/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM J. LIU,DEBTOR'S SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL, REDOCUMENTS RELATED TO EFPAR'S DISPUTEDCLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/12/2013 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH R. HSU RE DEFENSESDEBTOR MAY HAVE TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/23/2013 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU REOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/23/2013 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU AND J.LIU RE OBTAINING DOCUMENTS FROM SAMEFOR OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/20/2013 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDNECE TO R. HSU REOBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ANDDOCUMENTS FROM SAME RE LIQUIDATION OFEFPAR'S DISPUTED CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/31/2013 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH R. HSU AND J. LIU REOBTAINING DOCUMENTS FROM SAME REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| CLAIM AND LIQUIDATING SAME THROUGHLITIGATION. | |||||
| 2/4/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. ORH REPREPARING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDOBTAINING INFORMATION RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 3/6/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU RELEGAL RESEARCH RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPARDEVELOPMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/6/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH R. HSU RE ISSUES RELEGAL RESEARCH RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPARDEVELOPMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/7/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU RELEGAL RESEARCH RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | BN | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH C. MINIER ANDR. HSU RE DEFENSES TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU AND B.NELSON RE ISSUES RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM AND LEGALRESEARCH RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU RE LEGALISSUES RAISED BY SAME RE OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILSFROM R. HSU RE LEGAL ISSUES RE LITIGATINGEFPAR'S CLAIM AND PREPARING OBJECTION TOSAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 3/11/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAUL REISS REEFPAR CLAIM AND ISSUES RE POSSIBLESETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 3/12/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDLEGAL AUTHORITIES RECEIVED FROM DEBTOR'SLITIGATION COUNSEL RE PREPARINGOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MUTIPLE E-MAILS ANDCOPY OF EFPAR'S EXECUTED LEASE WITHDOLLAR TREE RECEIVED FROM R. HSU REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT MULTIPLE E-MAILS TO R. HSU REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CAIMAND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO SPECIALLITIGATION COUNSEL, P. BRUM, RE LEGALMEMORANDUM PREPARED BY SAME REOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 3/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMEMORANDUM OF LAW RECEIVED FROM P.BRUM, DEBTOR'S SPECIAL LITIGATIONCOUNSEL, RE RELEVANT CALIFORNIA | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| AUTHORITY RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | |||||
| 3/20/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU REOBTAINING CERTAIN DISCOVERY DOCUMENTSFROM PREPETITION STATE COURT LITIGATIONRE PREPARING/LITIGATING OBJECTIONS TOCLAIMS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSU REOBTAINING STATE COURT DISCOVERYDOCUMENTS FROM SAME RE PREPARATION OFCLAIM OBJECTIONS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCEFROM R. HSU RE STATE COURT LITIGATIONDISCOVERY THAT WAS TAKEN AND OBTAININGCOPIES OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 4/8/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 4/8/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND ENCLOSURETO M. ORH RE DRAFT OF OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND RELATED DECLARATIONSFOR REVIEW AND EXECUTION OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 4/9/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND MULTIOPLEENCLOSURES TO R. HSU RE DBTOR'S OBJECTIONTO CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 4/11/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU REISSUES RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/19/2013 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TOCANCELLATION OF EFPAR CONTRACT ANDFAILURE OF AMENDMENT TO REVIVE SAME. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/23/2013 | BN | RESEARCH RE ELEMENTS FOR CANCELLATIONOF A CONTRACT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/23/2013 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER CONTRACT CAN BESUFFICIENT AND DEFINITE BY INCORPORATINGANOTHER CONTRACT. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER SECOND AMENDMENTIS INDEPENDENT CONTRACT BASED ONINCORPORATION OF PREVIOUS CANCELLEDCONTRACT. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OFCONTRACT AND ATTEMPT TO REVIVE SAME. | 1.2 | $300 | $360.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER SECOND AMENDMENTIS INDEPENDENT CONTRACT BASED ONINCORPORATION OF PREVIOUS CANCELLEDCONTRACT. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE EFFECT OF CANCELLATION OFCONTRACT AND ATTEMPT TO REVIVE SAME. | 1.2 | $300 | $360.00 |
| 1/9/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE MODIFICATION OF A CANCELLED | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| CONTRACT. | |||||
| 1/9/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE LAW PERTAINING TOCANCELLATION AND REVIVAL OF CONTRACTS. | 0.7 | $300 | $210.00 |
| 1/9/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER SECOND AMENDMENTINCORPORATED ORIGINAL PURCHASEAGREEMENT BY REFERENCE. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING WHETHER ADOCUMENTS CAN INCORPORATE A CANCELLEDAGREEMENT BY REFERENCE. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 3/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER TERMINATEDCONTRACT CAN BE REVIVED. | 1.3 | $300 | $390.00 |
| 3/4/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE ISSUES REPREPARATION/FINALIZING OBJECTION TOCLAIM OF OFPAR DEVELOPMENT. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/5/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING WHETHERTERMINATED CONTRACT CAN BE REVIVED. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 3/5/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE INCORPORATION OFTERMINATED CONTRACT BY REFERENCE. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 3/6/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING WHETHERTERMINATED CONTRACT CAN BE REVIVED. | 1.2 | $300 | $360.00 |
| 3/6/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE RESCISSION FOR MISTAKE OFFACT OR LAW. | 2.2 | $300 | $660.00 |
| 3/7/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER IMPOSSIBILITY IS AVIABLE DEFENSE TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 1.1 | $300 | $330.00 |
| 3/7/2014 | BN | ANALYZE POSSIBLE DEFENSES TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/7/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND DEFENSES TO EFPARCLAIM. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| 3/10/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING REVIVAL OFCONTRACTS ISSUE. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 3/10/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING WHETHERIMPOSSIBILITY IS A VIABLE DEFENSE TO EFPARCLAIM. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 3/10/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTISSUES. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2/11/2013 | BN | RESEARCH RE MEASURE OF DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELL REAL PROPERTY | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 8/29/2013 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW AND STATUTORYAUTHORITY RE MEASURE OF DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT TO CONVEY REALPROPERTY RE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONSWITH EFPAR REGARDING ITS CLAIM. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 12/19/2013 | BN | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MEMORANDUM FROMR. HSU RE DOWENT'S DEFENSES TO EFPAR'SDAMAGE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THEALLEGED BREACH OF REAL CONTRACT. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 1/9/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE LOST PROFITS ASCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TOCONVEY REAL PROPERTY. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/10/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING LOST PROFITS ASCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TOCONVEY REAL PROPERTY. | 1.7 | $300 | $510.00 |
| 1/13/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO FAIR MARKETVALUE OF PROPERTY AND EFPAR'S MEASUREOF DAMAGES. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/13/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE HOW "VALUE" IS DEFINED FORPURPOSES OF STATUTORY DAMAGES FORFAILURE TO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 1/13/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING LOST PROFITS ASCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TOCONVEY REAL PROPERTY | 1.3 | $300 | $390.00 |
| 1/14/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING HOW "VALUE" ISDEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORYDAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO CONVEY REALPROPERTY. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 1/14/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER FAIR MARKET VALUECAN BE DETERMINED BY AUCTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE BYER'S DUTY TO PROVE IT WASREADY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PERFORM AS APREREQUISITE TO COMPENSATION. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE FAILURE TO MITIGATE BYBIDDING HIGH ENOUGH TO PURCHASEPROPERTY. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/19/2014 | BN | REVIEW MEMO RE EFPAR'S ENTITLEMENT TOCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 4/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE DAMAGES ISSUES RELEVANT TOOBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 4/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE STATEMENT OF FAIR MARKETVALUE RULE USED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT TOSELL REAL PROPERTY CASES. | 1.4 | $300 | $420.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/11/2013 | CAM | PREPARE STATEMENT OF FACTS/ANALYSIS,AND DOCUMENT BINDER, RE CLAIMS OF EFPARAGAINST DEBTOR AND DEBTOR'S POTENTIALDEFENSES TO SAME, AND RE DEBTOR'S CLAIMSAGAINST J. KIM AND MANDARIN REALTY ANDDEFENSES TO ASME; REVIEW/ANALYZEDOCUMENTS RE SAME. | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| 12/23/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE ANDSTATE COURT PLEADINGS AND DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPT OF D. WAN RE OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM RECEIVED FROM R. HSU | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 12/24/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM R. HSU RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| CLAIM. | |||||
| 12/20/2013 | BN | REVIEW AND ANALYZE STATE COURT LISPENDEN EXPUNGEMENT PLEADINGS FORPOSSIBLE USE IN OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/31/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM R. HSU AND J. LIU RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTINO TO EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDLIQUIDATING SAME THROUGH LITIGATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 1/7/2014 | BN | REVIEW AND ANALYZE PLEADINGS FILED INCONNECTION WITH STATE COURT LIS PENDENSLITIGATION FOR USE IN OBJECTION TO CLAIMOF EFPAR. | 2 | $300 | $600.00 |
| 1/7/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE STATE COURTPLEADINGS RECEIVED FROM R. HSU REPREPARATION OF OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OFSBH REALTY AND EFPAR. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | REVIEW TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TOEXPUNGE LIS PENDENS FOR USE IN OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/7/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE STATE COURTPLEADINGS RECEIVED FROM R. HSU REPREPARATION OF OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OFSBH REALTY AND EFPAR. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | REVIEW TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TOEXPUNGE LIS PENDENS FOR USE IN OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REPREPARING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | REVIEW LENGTHY STATEMENT OF FACTS FORPOSSIBLE USE IN OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 1.5 | $300 | $450.00 |
| 1/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REANALYZING CLAIM OF EFPAR AND PREPARINGOBJECTION TO SAME. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 2/4/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS ANDISSUES RE PREPARATION OF OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 2/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFEFPAR. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 2/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REDRAFTING AND REVISIONS OBJECTION TOCLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| 3/6/2014 | BN | REVIEW R. HSU'S MEMO RE OBJECTION TOEFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/10/2014 | BN | REVIEW DOCUMENTS TO BE USED AS EXHIBITSFOR OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 3/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | BN | REVIEW TRANSCRIPT OF SALE HEARINGS FORUSE IN EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/12/2014 | BN | REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS OF SALE HEARINGS TODETERMINE WHETHER EFPAR COMMENTEDON FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/18/2014 | BN | REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS OF SALE HEARINGS FORADMISSION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. | 1.5 | $300 | $450.00 |
| 3/19/2014 | BN | REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS OF SALE HEARINGS FORADMISSION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. | 1.4 | $300 | $420.00 |
| 3/19/2014 | BN | REVIEW NOTES AND MEMOS PERTAINING TOOBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/20/2014 | BN | REVIEW DEPOSITION OF M. ORH REGARDINGDOLLAR TREE LEASE. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/21/2014 | BN | REVIEW DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FORPOSSIBLE USE IN OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 4/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DECLARATION OF D.ZANDER TAKEN IN PREPETITION STATE COURTLITIGATION RE ISSUES RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF SBH REALTY ANDEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 4/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPT OF D. ZANDER FROMPREPETITINO STATE COURT LITIGATION RECLAIM OBJECTION LITIGATION. | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| 4/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRANSCRIPT OFDEPOSITION OF D. ZANDER RE STATE COURTLITIGATION AND RE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMSFILED AGAINST THE ESTATE. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/2/2013 | TR | ANALYZE STRATEGY RE DISPUTED EFPARCLAIM. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 12/20/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE LIQUIDATIONOF EFPAR'S DISPUTED CLAIM AND OBTAININGADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTSRE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 1/7/2014 | BN | ANALYZE STRATEGY FOR OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/9/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/20/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 2/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 2/4/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFEFPAR. | 1.3 | $375 | $487.50 |
| 2/28/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTION | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| TO EFPAR CLAIM. | |||||
| 3/3/2014 | CAM | REVIEW/ANALYZE DRAFT OF OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND ISSUES RE SAME REFINALIZING OBJECTION AND CONDUCTINGADDITIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH RE SAME. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| 3/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/5/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY RE EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 3/6/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTINOTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/6/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY RE EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES AND LEGALRESEARCH RE PREPARATION OF OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE SETTLEMENTDISCUSSIONS WITH S. REISS/EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 3/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFEFPAR DEVELOPMENT AND POSSIBLELIQUIDATION VALUE OF SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE OBTAININGTRANSCRIPT OF HEARING RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 3/31/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REPREPARATION. FINALIZATION OF OBJECTIONTO CLAIM EFPAR AND RELATED DOCUMENTS,AND RE OBTAINING FINAL TRANSCRIPT OFHEARING ON DEBTOR'S SALE MOTION RESAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 4/1/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO OBJECTIONTO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 4/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE PROOF AND SPECULATION ISSUESRELEVANT TO OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 4/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES ANDDOCUMENTS RE FINALIZING DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 4/22/2014 | CAM | ANALYZE ISSUES AND ADDITIONAL LEGALRESEARCH TO BE PERFORMED RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM AND POSSIBLESETTLEMENT OF SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 4/22/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY RE EFPAROBJECTION AND POSSIBLE SETTLEMENTNEGOTIATIONS. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/8/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE LEGAL ISSUES RE PREPARINGOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 3/7/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH CASE LAW RE ISSUES RE DRAFTINGOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPARDEVELOPMENT. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 3/11/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE STATUTORY AUTHORITY REISSUES RAISED BY R. HSU RE PREPARATION OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/1/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE VENDEE LIEN UNDER CALIFORNIALAW AND WHETHER SAME IS AVOIDABLE INBANKRUPTCY. | 2 | $300 | $600.00 |
| 4/2/2014 | BN | CONTINUE RESEARCHING VENDEE LIEN UNDERCALIFORNIA LAW AND WHETHER SAME ISAVOIDABLE IN BANKRUPTCY. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 4/2/2014 | BN | DRAFT EMAIL TO T. RINGSTAD AND C. MINIERRE AVOIDING EFPAR'S ASSERTED VENDEE'SLIEN. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 4/2/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE LEGAL RESEARCH REPOSSIBLE AVOIDANCE OF VENDEES LIEN BEINGASSERTED BY EFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 4/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE VALUATION ISSUES RELEVANT TOOBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/23/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTES RE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTOF D. ZANDER FROM PREPETITION STATECOURT LITIGATION RE CLAIM OBJECTIONLITIGATION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 4/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTES RE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTOF D. ZANDER FROM STATE COURTLITIGATION. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/7/2014 | BN | REVIEW CASES CITED BY EFPAR IN RESPONSETO ZANDER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TOEXPUNGE. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/3/2014 | BN | REVIEW OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/20/2014 | CAM | PREPARE/REVISE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOCLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 4/8/2014 | BN | DRAFT NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2/4/2014 | BN | FOLLOW UP ON OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3/19/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
Exhibit 3
(A) Drafting Claim Objection
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/7/2014 | BN | BEGIN DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/8/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 1/9/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 1/10/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 1/13/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/14/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 1/15/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1.6 | $300 | $480.00 |
| 2/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFEFPAR DEVELOPMENT. | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| 4/4/2014 | BN | DRAFT DISCUSSION OF CASE RE DETERMININGFAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF BREACHFOR USE IN EFPAR OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/15/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 1.6 | $300 | $480.00 |
| 1/16/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1.2 | $300 | $360.00 |
| 1/17/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 1/17/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 2.3 | $625 | $1,437.50 |
| 1/27/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 2/4/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 3/5/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.9 | $300 | $270.00 |
| 3/6/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 3/10/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 3/19/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 3/20/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 2.5 | $300 | $750.00 |
| 3/24/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1.5 | $300 | $450.00 |
| 3/26/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1.3 | $300 | $390.00 |
| 3/27/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTINO TO EFPAR'SCLAIM | 1.8 | $300 | $540.00 |
| 3/28/2014 | BN | CONTINUE REVISING OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM | 4.8 | $300 | $1,440.00 |
| 4/1/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPARCLAIM. | 1.2 | $625 | $750.00 |
| 4/1/2014 | TR | PREPARE ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TOOBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 1.5 | $625 | $937.50 |
| 4/3/2014 | TR | REVISE EFPAR OBJECTION. | 2.5 | $625 | $1,562.50 |
| 4/7/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 2.7 | $300 | $810.00 |
| 4/7/2014 | TR | ANALYZE AND REVISE LATEST DRAFT OFMOTION TO DISALLOW EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| 4/8/2014 | BN | REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3/28/2014 | BN | DRAFT DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 3/31/2014 | BN | CONTINUE DRAFTING DECLARATIONS INSUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/4/2014 | TR | PREPARE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 4 | $625 | $2,500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/8/2014 | BN | FINALIZE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM;PREPARE SAME AND EXHIBITS THERETO FORFILING. | 1.9 | $300 | $570.00 |
| 4/8/2014 | TR | REVISE FINAL CHANGES TO OBJECTION TOEFPAR CLAIM AND FINALIZE. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
Exhibit 4
(A) Analyze Opposition
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/29/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE (PRELIMINARILY)EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO ITSCLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 4/30/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TOOBJECTION TO CLAIM. | 0.1 | $300 | $30 |
| 4/30/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE OPPOSITION OFEFPAR TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. | 1.1 | $300 | $413 |
| 5/1/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 5/1/2014 | BN | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'SOPPOSITION, DECLARATION ANDDOCUMENTS RESPONDING TO DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM REPREPARATION OF DEBTOR'S REPLY TOSAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 5/5/2014 | BN | REVIEW OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TOEFPAR CLAIM. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 5/5/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TOCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATED TOEFPAR OBJECTION.ANALYZE ISSUES PERTAINING TOCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATED TOEFPAR OBJECTION. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/30/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH CASE LAW RE PREPARATION OFDEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'S OPPOSITION | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFSAME. | |||||
| 5/1/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW AUTHORITY REDRAFTING DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 5/2/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW ASSERTED BYEFPAR IN ITS OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO ITS CLAIM, AND RE CASE LAWFAVORABLE TO DEBTOR'S POSITION REDRAFTING DEBTOR'S REPLY. | 2.2 | $375 | $825.00 |
| 5/2/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OFEFPAR DEVELOPMENT TO DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM, AND DRAFTSUPPORTING DECLARATIONS. | 2.1 | $375 | $787.50 |
| 5/5/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW AUTHORITY REDRAFTING DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND SUPPORTINGDECLARATIONS. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/30/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOROISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 5/1/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| 5/5/2014 | BN | DRAFT ARGUMENT THAT CONSEQUENTIALDAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO EFPARFOR REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONTO CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 5/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND SUPPORTINGDECLARATIONS OF M. ORH ANO C. MINIER. | 3.6 | $375 | $1,350.00 |
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S REPLY AND SUPPORTINGDECLARATIONS RESPONDING TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 1.7 | $375 | $637.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/1/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REDRAFTING DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| CLAIM FILED BY EFPAR. | |||||
| 5/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REDRAFTING DEBTOR'S REPLY TO EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM AND SUPPORTINGDECLARATIONS. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 5/6/2014 | BN | REVIEW SALE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS FORUSE IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TOOBJECTOIN TO OOWENT CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 5/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRANSCRIPT OFHEARING ON DEBTOR'S MOTION TO SELLREAL PROPERTY AND TO REJECT ZANDERPREPETITION AGREEMENTS REREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ZANDER ANDEFPAR AT SAME RE LITIGATION REOBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR AND SBHREALTY. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCES (MULTIPLE)WITH M. ORH RE SAME REVIEWING REPLYTO OPPOSITION OF EFPAR TO OBJECTIONTO ITS CLAIM, AND REVIEWING, SIGNINGAND RETURNING SUPPORTINGDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE DRAFT OFDEBTOR'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF EFPARTO OBJECTION TO ITS CLAIM, ANDSUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, RE HAVINGSAME REVIEW SAME AND EXECUTEDECLARATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | PREPARE SECOND CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE DRAFT OFDEBTOR'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF EFPARTO OBJECTION TO ITS CLAIM, ANDSUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, RE HAVINGSAME REVIEW DOCUMENTSAND EXECUTE DECLARATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | DRAFT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TODECLARATION OF F. EFRAIM FILED INSUPPORT OF EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TODEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO ITS CLAIM. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZE EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF F.EFRAIM FILED IN SUPPORT OF EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONTO ITS CLAIM PER INSTRUCTION OF T.RINGSTAD. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 5/6/2014 | TR | REVISE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZE DEBTOR'SREPLY AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONSRESPONDING TO EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TODEBTOR'S CLAIM OBJECTION PERINSTRUCTION OF T. RINGSTAD. | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| 5/6/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE REPLY TO EFPAROPPOSITION TO CLAIM OBJECTION. | 4.2 | $625 | $2,625.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/7/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRANSCRIPT OFHEARING ON DEBTOR'S MOTION TO SELLREAL PROPERTY AND TO REJECT ZANDERPREPETITION AGREEMENTS REREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ZANDERAND EFPAR AT SAME RE LITIGATION REOBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR ANDSBH REALTY. | 2.9 | $375 | $1,087.50 |
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED MEDIATION ANDTRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM; REVIEW /REVISE SAME. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 5/14/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE PROPOSED SCHEDULINGORDER RE TRIAL AND MEDIATION REOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/15/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REOBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR ANDSBH REALTY, AND RE MEDIATIONS RESAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 5/15/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE MULTIPLE E-MAILS WITH M.ORH RE RE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OFEFPAR AND SBH REALTY, AND RE | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| MEDIATIONS AND EVIDENTIARYHEARINGS RE SAME. |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/12/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURTSTENTATIVE RULING ON DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONTO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE PLEADINGS INPREPARATION FOR HEARING ONDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | ATTEND HEARING ON DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
Exhibit 5
(A) Correspondence (Drafting and Analyzing) and Conferring with M. Orh
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/15/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REOBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR ANDSBH REALTY, AND RE MEDIATIONS RESAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 5/15/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE MULTIPLE E-MAILS WITH M.ORH RE RE OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OFEFPAR AND SBH REALTY, AND REMEDIATIONS AND EVIDENTIARYHEARINGS RESAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/2/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE SCHEDULING MEDIATIONWITH EFPAR RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOCLAIM OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORH REARRANGING MEDIATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REARRANGING EFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORH REARRANGI NG MEDIATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORH REARRANGING EFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH RE | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| ARRANGINGEFPAR MEDIATION. | |||||
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH REARRANGINGEFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORH REISSUES RE EFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/25/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REMEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH REEFPARMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORHAND R. HSU RE ARRANGINGMEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH REARRANGINGMEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSUAND M. ORH RE ARRANGING MEDIATIONWITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/7/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORHRE PREPARATION FOR MEDIATIONWITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/4/2013 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR, RE ISSUES RE CASELAW DISALLOWING RECOVERY OF LOSTRENT CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELL REALPROPERTY; DRAFT REPLY E-MAIL TOSAME RE SAME AND RE POTENTIALMEDIATION RE DISPUTED CLAIM FILEDBY SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL FOREFPARDEVELOPMENT, S. REISS, RE CHOOSINGMEDIATOR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISS,EFPAR'S COUNSEL, RE CHOOSINGMEDIATOR AND ALTERNATE, ANDCOMPLETI NG AND FILING MEDIATIONFORMS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 6/11/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE ISSUES RE CHOOSING MEDIATORAND PREPARATION OF MEDIATIONFORMS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/9/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ARRANGING MEDIATIONDATE WITH MEDIATOR RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO CAIM FILED BY SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/9/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL E-MAILS WITH EFPAR'S COUNSEL REARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/10/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO MEDIATOR F. ADAMSAND EFPAR'S COUNSEL, S. REISS, REARRANGING MEDIATION RE EFPAR'SCLAIMAND DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSAND MEDIATOR RE CONFIRMINGMEDIATION DATE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS REARRANGING EFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR 1SCOUNSEL RE NEEDOF SAME TO RESCHEDULE MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH EFPAR1S COUNSEL RE OBTAINING DOCUMENTPRODUCTION AND DISCOVERYRESPONSES FROM SAME, AND RERESCHEDULING MEDIATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE REPOSTPONEMENT OF MEDIATION BY F.SIMAB,COUNSEL FOR EFPAR. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RESTIPULATION CONTINUING MEDIATIONCOMPLETION DEADLINE AND DEADLINEFOR DOWENT TO CONDUCT FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL RESTIPULATION CONTINUING MEDIATIONCOMPLETION DEADLINE AND DEADLINEFOR DEBTOR TO CONDUCT FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY AND ISSUES RESAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REDEPOSITIONS AND SCHEDULINGMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUESRE NOTICED DEPOSITIONS AND ARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KARENAT SAUL REISS' OFFICE RE ARRANGINGMEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL REISSUES RE ARRANGING DEPOSITIONS OFEFPAR'S TRIAL WITNESSES ANDARRANGINGMEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNSELFOR EFPAR, MANDARIN REALTY AND JAEKIM RE ARRANGING MEDIATION ANDISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/22/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOCOUNSEL FOR PARTIES RE EFPARMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/2/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/7/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE UPCOMINGMEDIATION AND PREPARATION OFJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MEDIATIONFORMS AND GENERAL ORDERINSTRUCTIONS RE COURT ORDEREDMEDIATION | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 5/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES ANDDOCUMENTS RE SELECTI NG MEDIATORAND ALTERNATE, AND COMPLETI NGREQUIRED FORMS RE COURT'SMEDIATION PROGRAM., | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 6/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALVZE DOCUMENTSAND ISSUES RE SELECTING MEDIATOR | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| AND ALTERNATE MEDIATOR WITH EFPARRE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIMOF SAME, AND RE COMPLETING ANDFILING REQUIRED MEDIATION FORMSONA TIMELY BASIS. | |||||
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REDRAFTING REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENTTO MEDIATION PROGRAM ANDPROPOSED ORDER ASSIGNING MATTERTO MEDIATION RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONTO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 6/12/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EXECUTEDMEDIATION DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROMEFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/12/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH F.ADAMS RE SAME MEDIATING DISPUTEWITH EFPAR REGARDING ITS CLAIM.TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH F.ADAMS RE SAME MEDIATING DISPUTEWITH EFPAR REGARDING ITS CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 7/14/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOMEDIATOR F. ADAMS RE ARRANGINGMEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM MEDIATOR F.ADAMS RE ARRANGING MEDIATIONDATE RE EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM FRANK ADAMS' OFFICE REARRANGING MEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO F. ADAMSRE ARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOMEDIATOR RE ARRANGING EFPARMEDIATION | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOMEDIATOR RE ARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTRECEIVED FROM MEDIATOR RECONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT,MEDIATION PROCEDURES,BRIEF FILING DEADLINE AND RELATEDMATTERS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHMEDIATOR RE RESCHEDULINGMEDIATIONAND AVAILABLE DATES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCES (MULTIPLE)WITH MEDIATOR'S ASSISTANT REEFFORTS TO RESCHEDULE MEDIATION,AND RE OBTAINING MULTIPLEADDITIONAL DATES ON WHICHMEDIATION COULD BE HELD. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | THIRD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHMEDIATOR'S ASSISTANT RE ARRANGI NGEFPAR MEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHMEDIATOR'S ASSISTANT RERESCHEDULINGEFPAR MEDIATION AND OBTAININGADDITIONAL POSSIBLE MEDIATIONDATES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHMEDIATOR'S ASSISTANT RE OBTAININGADDITIONAL POSSIBLE MEDIATIONDATES RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHMEDIATOR'S ASSISTANT RECONFIRMING NEW MEDIATION DATE /TIME AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND ENCLOSUREFROM MEDIATOR RE EFPAR MEDIATIONAND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT RESAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RECHOOSING MEDIATOR WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, S. REISS, RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 6/10/2014 | TR | REVIEW STRATEGY AND ISSUES REMEDIATION OF EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 6/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RENEGOTIATIONS WITH EFPARDEVELOPMENT RE CHOOSINGMEDIATOR RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOCLAIM OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REARRANGING MEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | TR | ANALYZE STRATEGY RE EFPARMEDIATION AND TIMING. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND PREPARE FORMEDIATION OF EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE MEDIATION OFEFPAR CLAIM. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/24/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSURE STRATEGY FOR MEDIATION. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM R. HSU RE RESCHEDULINGMEDIATION WITH EFPAR AND OTHERPARTIES AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSURE MEDIATION OF EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REARRANGING EFPARMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REEFPARMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSURE ISSUES RE ARRANGING EFPARMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REARRANGINGMEDIATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/8/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSURE STRATEGY FOR MEDIATION WITHEFPAR, AND ISSUES RE SAME, AND REMEDIATION BRIEF JUST SERVED BY J.KIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/6/2014 | TR | REVISE EFPAR MEDIATION BRIEF. | 1.3 | $625 | $812.50 |
| 8/11/2014 | BN | PREPARE DRAFT EFPAR OBJECTIONMEDIATION BRIEF. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 8/11/2014 | BN | DRAFT EFPAR OBJECTION MEDIATIONBRIEF. | 3.5 | $300 | $1,050.00 |
| 8/11/2014 | BN | PREPARE EXHIBITS TO MEDIATIONBRIEF. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 8/11/2014 | BN | FINALIZE EFPAR OBJECTION MEDIATIONBRIEF; PREPARE SAME FOR FILING. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 8/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZE MEDIATIONBRIEF AND EXHIBITS RE MEDIATIONWITH EFPAR. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| 8/11/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE MEDIATION BRIEFRE EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.7 | $625 | $437.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE LOCAL RULES, FEDERALRULES AND COURT'S TRIALPROCEDURESRE CALENDARING VARIOUS DATES ANDDEADLINES RE MEDIATION AND TRIALRE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 5/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED MEDIATION ANDTRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER REDEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM; REVIEW/ REVISE SAME. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 5/14/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE PROPOSED SCHEDULINGORDER RE TRIAL AND MEDIATION REOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER ASSIGNINGMATTER TO MEDIATION RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM; REVIEW/ REVISE / FINALIZE SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 6/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT TOMEDIATION PROGRAM RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM; REVIEW/ REVISE / FINALIZE SAME. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 6/12/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE PROPOSED ORDER ASSIGNINGMATTER TO MEDIATION ANDREQUEST FOR MEDIATION FOR SERVICEAND FILING. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 6/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURT'S ORDERASSIGNING EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTIONDISPUTE TO MEDIATION AND RELATEDMEDIATION DOCUMENTS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REDRAFTING STIPULATION CONTINUINGDISCOVERY AND MEDIATION | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| DEADLINES. | |||||
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE STIPULATION WITH EFPARCONTINUING MEDIATION ANDDISCOVERYDEADLINES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | DRAFT STIPULATION CONTINUINGMEDIATION COMPLETION DEADLINEAND DEADLINE FOR DEBTOR TOCONDUCT FOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE FEASIBILITY OFVARIOUS POSSIBLE MEDIATION DATESPROVIDED BY MEDIATOR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUINGMEDIATION COMPLETION DEADLINEAND DEADLINE FOR DEBTOR TOCONDUCT FOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE COURT'S ENTRY OFORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERYCOMPLETION AND MEDIATIONCOMPLETION DEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND ISSUES RE RESCHEDULINGMEDIATION BETWEEN EFPAR, DEBTOR,MANDARIN REALTY AND JAE KIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/8/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DOCUMENTS FOR MEDIATIONWITH EFPAR, J. KIM AND MANDARINREALTY. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 9/8/2014 | TR | REVIEW STATUS OF ALL CREDITORCLAIMS IN PREPARATION FORMEDIATIONOF EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 9/8/2014 | TR | REVIEW STATUS OF MEDIATION BRIEFSIN PREPARATION FOR MEDIATION OFEFPAR CLAIM. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND OBJECTION TONOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION OF J. KIM INCONNECTION WITH EFPAR CLAIMOBJECTION RECEIVE FROM COUNSELFOR KIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/9/2014 | TR | ATTEND MEDIATION OF EFPAR, JAE KIMAND MANDARIN REALTY CLAIMS ATBEST BEST & KRIEGER OFFICES INRIVERSIDE. | 11.8 | $625 | $7,375.00 |
Exhibit 6
(A) Correspondence (Drafting and Analyzing) and Conferring with Efpar's Counsel and miscellaneous work related to pretrial conferences
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENT RECEIVEDFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL RE PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/6/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DISCOVERY ISSUES,JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/6/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE PREPARATIONOF JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION,PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND COURT"SSCHEDULING ORDER. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL REPREPARATION OF JOINT PRE-TRIALORDER. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE UPCOMING PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.REISS RE EVENTS OCCURRING ATCHAPTER 11STATUS CONFERENCE,CONTINUING TRIAL AND VARIOUSRELATED DEADLINES, AND RERESCHEDULING DEPOSITIOIN OF B.MICHAELS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | DRAFT STIPULATION WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE CONTINUING TRIAL ANDPRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND REEXTENDING DISCOVERY COMPLETIONDEADLINE, DEADLINE FOR FILINGDIRECT TESTIMONY DECLARATIONS,OBJECTIONS AND RELATED | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| DOCUMENTS. | |||||
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE PREPARATION OFJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION ANDORDER WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM JUDGE'SCHAMBERS REREJECTION OF JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDERDUE TO EFPAR'S FAILURE TO SIGNSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDJOINT PRE-TRIALORDER RECEIVED FROM EFPAR1SCOUNSEL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REISSUES RE JOINT PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE AND TRIAL SCHEDULE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER AS ENTERED BY COURT. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE SCOPE OFPRETRIAL ORDER AND EFFECT OFPRETRIALORDER ON TRIAL EVIDENCE. | 2.5 | $300 | $750.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/3/2014 | TR | EXCHANGE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCEWITH J. BROKER RE POSSIBLEAPPRAISER. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 7/22/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TOPOSSIBLE EXPERT WITNESS REVALUATION. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 7/30/2014 | TR | EXCHANGE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCEWITH POSSIBLE EXPERT WITNESS. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER G. ELLIS RE EXPERTWITNESS SERVICES OF SAME FORTRIAL RE EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDDEBTOR'S OBJECTIONTO SAME, CASE FACTS ANDDOCUMENTS, AND ISSUES INLITIGATION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER M. MASON RE EXPERTWITNESS SERVICES OF SAME FOR | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| TRIAL RE EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDDEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO SAME. | |||||
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN RE EXPERTWITNESS SERVICES OF SAME FORTRIAL RE EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOAPPRAISER M. MASON RE ISSUES RECASE FACTS, LITIGATION WITH EFPAR,HIRING SAME AS TRIAL EXPERT, ETC. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER M. MASON RE ISSUES RECASE FACTS AND ISSUES RE DEBTOR'SLITIGATION WITH EFPAR, HIRINGSAME ASTRIAL EXPERT, AND RELATED ISSUES. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE, PROPOSAL ANDRESUMERECEIVED FROM APPRAISER B.LOFGREN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN RE CASEFACTSAND ISSUES, ANDR E HIRING SAME ASDEBTOR'S EXPERT RE TRIAL REDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN RE CASEFACTS AND ISSUES, AN RE HIRINGSAME AS DEBTOR'S EXPERT RE TRIALREDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH APPRAISERB. LOFGREN RE SAME BEINGDEBTOR'S VALUATION RE EFPARLITIGATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH APPRAISERM. MASON RE ISSUES RE HISREFERENCES, AND RE RETAININGSAME RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND CV RECEIVEDFROM APPRAISER MIKE MASON REHIRING SAME IN CONNECTION WITHTRIAL OFDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| CLAIM. | |||||
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOAPPRAISER M. MASON RE OBTAININGADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROMSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROMAPPRAISER M. MASON RE EFPARCLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TODEBTOR'S APPRAISER, B. LOFGREN, REISSUES RE CASE FACTS AND REDEBTOR HIRING SAME AS EXPERTWITNESS REEFPAR TRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHDEBTOR'S APPRAISER RE CASE FACTSAND DOCUMENTS, AND RE DEBTORHIRING SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANDENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTRECEIVED FROM APPRAISER B.LOFGREN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE HIRING SAME ANDPROVIDING DOCUMENTS TO SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM APPRAISERB. LOFGREN RE PROVIDING SAMEWITH DOCUMENTS ANDINFORMATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DETAILEDCORRESPONDENCE AND MULTIPLEENCLOSURES TO B. LOFGREN RE CASEFACTS AND DOCUMENTS RELEVANTTO EFPAR DISPUTE AND PREPARATIONOF APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE SECOND E-MAIL ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO APPRAISERB. LOFGREN RE CORRESPONDENCEAND MULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO B.LOFGREN RE CASE FACTS ANDDOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO EFPARDISPUTEAND PREPARATION OF APPRAISAL OFREAL PROPERTY. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PROVIDING DOCUMENTS ANDINFORMATION TO APPRAISER B.LOFGREN RE CASE FACTS ANDDOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO EFPAR | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| DISPUTE AND PREPARATION OFAPPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY. | |||||
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO B.LOFGREN RE PROVIDING DOCUMENTSTO SAME RE ANALYZING VALUE OFDEBTOR'SREAL PROPERTY RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B. LOFGRENREPROVIDING DOCUMENTS TO SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN RE APPRAISAL REPORTPREPARED BY SAME AND ISSUES REPROPERTY VALUATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE EFPAR TRIAL ANDSCHEDULING OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/31/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTFROMDEBTOR'S APPRAISER, B. LOFGREN, REAPPRAISAL REPORT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/31/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TODEBTOR'S APPRAISER, B. LOFGREN, REAPPRAISAL REPORT. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DETAILEDCORRESPONDENCE ANO ENCLOSURETO REAL ESTATE EXPERT R. RIEMER REDOWENT POSSIBLY HIRING SAME REEFPAR TRIAL, CASE FACTS, PARTIESIDENTITIES AND HISTORY OF PRIORSTATE COURT LITIGATION ANDTESTIMONY GIVEN BY SAME IN STATECOURT LITIGATION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/21/2014 | TR | REVIEW ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENTFOR POTENTIAL EXPERT WITNESS INEFPAR MATTER. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO R. RIEMER REEXECUTEDENGAGEMENT LETIER, PAYMENT OFRETAINER AND ISSUES RE HIRINGSAME AS EXPERT RE TRIAL WITHEFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN RE TRIAL PREPARATIONISSUES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/2/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN RE TRIAL PREPARATION | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| ISSUES. | |||||
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B. LOFGRENRE TRIALPREPARATION ISSUES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/12/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE EFPAR JOINTPRETRIAL STIPULATION. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONAND ORDER, EXHIBIT LIST ANDWITNESS LIST. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, EXHIBITLIST AND WITNESS LIST. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 10/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE PARTY ANDNON-PARTY DOCUMENTPRODUCTIONS FROM PREPETITIONSTATE COURT LITIGATION RECEIVEDFROM B. BROUSSEAU REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL WITH EFPAR,AND PREPARINGJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER, AND EXHIBITLSIT AND BINDER. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 10/22/2014 | CAM | PREPARE JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, EXHIBITLIST ANDEXHIBIT BINDER RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 10/30/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, ANDEXHIBIT LIST RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 11/6/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITSAND EXHIBIT LIST, AND RE DRAFTINGJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 11/6/2014 | CAM | DRAFT JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONAND ORDER, AND EXHIBIT ANDWITNESS LISTS. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 11/7/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER. | 3.3 | $375 | $1,237.50 |
| 11/7/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DRAFT JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, ANDIDENTIFYING TRIAL EXHIBITS AND | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| PREPARING EXHIBIT BINDER. | |||||
| 11/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONAND ORDER. | 4.7 | $375 | $1,762.50 |
| 11/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER. | 1 | $375 | $375.00 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DRAFT OFJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION ANDORDER RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REDRAFT OF JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, ANDISSUES RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REVIEW / REVISE JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION AND ORDER REDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 1.5 | $375 | $562.50 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE(PRELIMINARILY) CORRESPONDENCEAND REVISED DRAFT OF JOINTPRETRIAL ORDER RECEIVED FROMEFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE SECOND E-MAIL FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL REARRANGING MEET AND CONFER REJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION ANDORDER. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, AND REARRANGING MEET AND CONFERPHONE CALL RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE REVISED DRAFTOF JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONAND ORDER RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL AND ANALYZE ISSUES RESAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED FURTHER REVISONSTO JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATIONAND ORDER. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE REVISIONS TO JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND ARRANGINGTELEPHONE CALL TO DISCUSS SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE E-MAIL FROMEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE ARRANGINGMEET AND CONFER RE JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION AND ORDER. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/14/2014 | TR | REVIEW EFPAR REVISIONS TO JOINTPRETRIAL STIPULATION. | 1 | $625 | $625.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE NEGOTIATINGTERMS OF JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REFURTHER REVISED DRAFT OF JOINTPRE-TRIAL STIPULATION AND ORDERFOR EXECUTION OF SAME, AND REISSUES RE EXCHANGE OF TRIALEXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT / REVIEW / REVISE JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION AND ORDER, ANDEXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST, RE TRIALWITH EFPAR. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REFINALIZED DRAFT OF JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER FOREXECUTION OF SAME, AND RECERTAIN CORRECTIONS THAT WEREMADETO STIPULATION AND ORDER. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE JOINT PRETRIALSTIPULATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL NEED TO LODGE PRE-TRIALORDER UNILATERALLY DUE TOFAILURE OF SAME TO PROVIDECOMPLETEDSIGNATURE PAGE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DECLARATION OF C. MINIER REUNILATERALLY LODGING PROPOSEDJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION ANDORDER. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER,WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE GETTING SAME TO SIGNPRE-TRIAL ORDER, AND RE PARTIESSTIPULATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OFEACH OTHER'S TRIAL EXHIBITS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE JOINT PRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER FOR RE-FILING WITHSIGNATURE OF EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION AND ORDER REDEBTOR'S STIPULATION TOAUTHENTICITY / FOUNDATION OF | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| CERTAIN OF EFPAR'S TRIAL EXHIBITSAND OBJECTIONS TO OTHER EXHIBITSPERINSTRUCTION OF COURT AT PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/12/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAULREISS RE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS REEFPAR. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| 9/12/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH F.ADAMS RE EFPAR SETTLEMENTNEGOTIATIONS. | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 9/12/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHROGER HSU RE SETTLEMENTOPTIONS REEFPAR | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU AND T. RINGSTAD RE ISSUES REATIEMPTING TO NEGOTIATESETTLEMENT WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | TR | EXCHANGE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCEWITH S. REISS RE SETTLEMENTSTATUS. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONSWITHEFPAR. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE SETTLEMENTNEGOTIATIONS WITH EFPAR, ISSUESRE SAME AND RE PREPARATION FORTRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM R. HSU AND T.RINGSTAD RE ISSUES RE POSSIBILITYOF NEGOTIATING SETTLEMENT WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE EFFORTS TONEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT WITH EFPARAND RE TRIAL PREPARATION REDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REISSUES RE EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATESETTLEMENT WITH EFPAR ANDMEETING WITH | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| CLIENTS RE SAME. | |||||
| 9/17/2014 | TR | EXCHANGE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCEWITH R. HSU RE POSSBILE MEETINGTO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT. | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE SETTLEMENTAND POSSIBLE CONTINUANCE OFTRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | TR | MEET AND CONFER WITH STEVE ANDMICHELLE ORH RE SETTLEMENTISSUES AND STRATEGY. | 1.8 | $625 | $1,125.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAULREISS RE SETTLEMENT AND TRIALDATE. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSURE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE ATTEMPTING TONEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT WITHEFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU AND T. RINGSTAD REATIEMPTING TO NEGOTIATESETTLEMENT WITH EFPAR, AND RETRIAL PREPARATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH RESETTLEMENTNEGOTIATIONS WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M.ORH RE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONSWITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE EFPAR'S REJECTION OFSETTLEMENT OFFER. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE SETTLEMENT. | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | DRAFT SETTLEMENT OFFER TO EFPAR. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.REISS RE SETTLEMENT OFFER. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM R.HSU AND MICHELLE ORH RESETTLEMENT OFFER. | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | ANALYZE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCEFROM M. ORH RE SETTLEMENT OFFERAND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONSWITH EFPAR, OBTAININGDOCUMENTS RE SAME AND RE TRIAL | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| PREPARATION. | |||||
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH RESETTLEMENTNEGOTIATIONS WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORHRE SETTLEMENT COUNTEROFFERRECEIVED FROM EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/16/2014 | TR | REVISE DRAFT LETIER TO M. ORH RESETTLEMENT ISSUES WITH EFPAR. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE POSSIBLE CONTINUANCEOF TRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REPOSSIBLE POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE POSSIBLECONTINUANCE OF TRIAL ANDPOTENTIAL PROBLEMS THATCONTINUANCEWOULD CAUSE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHASSISTANT TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REREQUEST OF SAME TO CONTINUETRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO S. REISS RE DRAFT OFSTIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL,PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ANDVARIOUS DEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING STIPULATION WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE CONTINUINGTRIAL AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE,AND RE EXTENDING DISCOVERYCOMPLETION DEADLINE, DEADLINEFOR FILING DIRECT TESTIMONYDECLARATIONS, OBJECTIONS ANDRELATEDDOCUMENTS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDSTIPULATION CONTINUING TRIAL ANDOTHER DEADLINES RECEIVED FROM S. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| REISS. | |||||
| 10/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE STIPULATION CONTINUING TRIALAND OTHER DEADLINES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/7/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE COURT'S ENTRY OF ORDER ONSTIPULATION CONTINUING TRIAL,EXTENDING DEADLINES AND TAKINGSTATUS CONFERENCE OFF CALENDAR,AND RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITION OFD. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/11/2014 | BN | REVIEW PLEADINGS FILED INCONNECTION WITH OBJECTION TOEFPARCLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE MEETING WITH CLIENT'SPRINCIPALS RE EFPAR CLAIMLITIGAITON. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M.ORH RE MEETING RE EFPAR CLAIMOBJECTION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REEFPAR CLAIM LITIGATION ANDMEETING RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | MEET AND CONFER WITH M. ORH, S.ORH, R. HSU AND T. RINGSTAD REEFPAR CLAIM LITIGATION. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REMEETING WITHMICHELLE AND SAHM ORH. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS FROM R. HSU REEXHIBITS TO DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPTS RE TRIAL PREPARATIONREOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSUAND M. ORH RE OBTAININGADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROMSAME RE EFPAR1S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE TRIAL OF EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| (PRELIMINARILY) EFPAR'S DIRECTTRIAL TESTIMONYDECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS. | |||||
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE LITIGATION WITH EFPAR,DEPOSITIONS THAT HAVE BEENTAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH SAME,AND TRIAL STRATEGY RE SAME. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 10/8/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED CORRESPONDENCETO S. AND M. ORH RE INFORMATIONLEARNED FROM RECENTDEPOSITIONS AND RE EVIDENCEEXPECTED TO BE PRESENTED ATTRIAL OF OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM AND ISSUES RESAME. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| 10/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF DETAILEDLETTER TO S. AND M. ORH REEVIDENCE EXPECTED TO BEPRESENTED AT TRIAL OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDISSUES RE SAME. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 10/9/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED LEITER TO S. ANDM. ORH RE EVIDENCE EXPECTED TOBE PRESENTED ATTRIAL OFOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDISSUES RESAME. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED CORRESPONDENCETO M. ORH RE ANALYSIS OF FACTS,EVIDENCE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES ATISSUES IN LITIGATION WITH EFPARAND RECOMMENDED STRATEGY RESAME. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING CORRESPONDENCE TOM. ORH RE ISSUES RE EFPARLITIGATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/13/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE EFPAR LITIGATION ANDTRIAL PREPARATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DETAILEDCORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORHANALYZING ISSUES RE LITIGATIONCONCERNING EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED CORRESPONDENCETO M. ORH ANALYZING ISSUES RELITIGATION CONCERNING EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 10/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH P. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| ROSENBAUM RE STATUS OFLITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | |||||
| 10/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM P.ROSENBAUM RESTATUS OF CLAIM LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/20/2014 | CAM | REVISE / FINALIZE LENGTHY LETIERTO MICHELLE AND SAHM ORH REANALYSIS OF ISSUES AND FACTS INEFPAR LITIGATION IN LIGHT OFAPPLICABLE LAW AND ANTICIPATEDRESULT OF TRIAL RE SAME. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 10/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND MULTIPLE DOCUMENTSRECEIVED FROM M. ORH RE ISSUESIN LITIGATION WITH EFPAR,DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO PARTIES'CLAIMS AND DEFENSES RE SAMEAND RE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENTOF DISPUTE, AND ANALYZE ISSUES RESAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM M. ORH RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM M. ORH RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTRECEIVED FROM R. HSU RE EFPARLITIGATION AND PREPARING FORTRIAL RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/30/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE STATE LAW LEGAL ISSUESRELATED TO LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/30/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE(PRELIMINARILY) LEGAL RESEARCHRECEIVED FROMR. HSU RE LITIGATION WITH EFPAR. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/3/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND(PRELIMINARILY) LEGALRESEARCH RECEIVED FROM J. LIU. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL RESTIPULATING TO AUTHENTICITY OF | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| EFPAR'S TRIAL OBJECTIONS. | |||||
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE SECONDCORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE VARIOUSDEADLINES ASSOCIATED WITH TRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/2/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE TRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/2/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUESREUPCOMING TRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH P.ROSENBAUM RE STATUS OFLITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | PREPARE TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST ANDTRIAL EXHIBITS RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONTO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM J. LIURE PREPARATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITSRE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DEBTOR'S TRIAL WITNESSLIST RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF DEBTOR'S TRIALEXHIBIT LIST AND TRIAL EXHIBITS REDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU AND J. LIU RE OBTAININGDOCUMENTS FROM SAME REPREPARING TRIAL EXHIBITS REOBJECTION TOEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLETRIAL EXHIBITS RECEIVED FROMEFPAR'SCOUNSEL, AND ANALYZE ISSUES RESTIPULATING TO AUTHENTICITY OFEXHIBITS. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| RE PREPARATION OF DEBTOR'S FINALTRIAL EXHIBIT LIST PER INSTRUCTIONOF COURT AT PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. | |||||
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S FINAL TRIALEXHIBIT LIST PER INSTRUCTION OFCOURT ATPRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT APPLICATION TO EMPLOYAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN RE TRIAL ONDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN REOBTAINING INFORMATION ANDDOCUMENTS FROM SAME REPREPARATION OF EMPLOYMENTAPPLICATION, DECLARATION ANDEXHIBITS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.CHRIST, B. LOFGREN'S ASSISTANT REISSUES RE PEREGRINE EMPLOYMENTAPPLICATION AND RE NEED TOPREPARE TRIAL DECLARATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO S.CHRIST RE PEREGRINE'S EMPLOYMENTAPPLICATION AND OBTAINING TRIALDECLARATION FROM B. LOFGREN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S MOTION TO EMPLOYPEREGRINE REALTY / BRAD LOFGRENAND DECLARATIONS; REVIEW / REVISESAME. | 2.3 | $375 | $862.50 |
| 11/13/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF DEBTOR'SAPPLICATION TO EMPLOY PEREGRINEREALTY / BRAD LOFGREN,SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS ANDEXHIBITS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE EMPLOYMENTAPPLICATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE E-MAIL ANDEXECUTED DECLARATION RECEIVEDFROM B. LOFGREN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF DEBTOR'S TRIALEXHIBITS RE SENDING COPY OF SAME | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | |||||
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDSIGNATURE PAGES TO APPLICATIONTO EMPLOY PEREGRINE REALTYAPPRAISER RECEIVED FROM M. ORH. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE APPLICATION TO EMPLOY B.LOFGREN / PEREGRINE, DECLARATIONAND EXHIBIT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/23/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER ONDEBTOR'S MOTION TO EMPLOYAPPRAISER B. LOFGREN / PEREGRINEREALTY. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR1S COUNSEL RE TRIALDECLARATIONSFILED BY SAME AND RE ISSUES REDEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE OBTAINING BASICINFORMATION RE ONE OF EFPAR'STRIAL WITNESSES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURES TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REDEBTOR'S ADDITIONAL TRIALEXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/18/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL READDITIONAL TRIAL EXHIBIT OFDEBTOR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.RIEMER RE TERMS OF DEBTOR'SEMPLOYMENT OF SAME AS REALESTATE TRANSACTION EXPERT REEFPAR TRIAL AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH REALESTATE TRANSACTION EXPERT, R.RIEMER, RE POSSIBILITY OF DEBTORHIRING SAME RE EFPAR TRIAL, AND RE | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| CASE FACTS AND ISSUES. | |||||
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R.RIEMER RE REQUESTED REVISIONS TORETAINER AGREEMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTRECEIVEDFROM R. RIEMER RE DRAFT OFRETAINER AGREEMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/3/2014 | TR | REVIEW APPRAISER WEBSITE REQUALIFICATIONS. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | TR | RESEARCH RE POSSIBLE EXPERTWITNESS RE VALUATION. | 1 | $625 | $625.00 |
| 9/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REHIRING APPRAISER RE CLAIMLITIGATIONWITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE QUALIFICATIONS OFAPPRAISERS B. LOFGREN AND M.MASONRE DEBTOR POTENTIALLY HIRINGSAME AS TRIAL EXPERT RE OBJECTIONTO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE REAL ESTATETRANSACTION EXPERT TO TESTIFY ATTRIAL ANDTESTIMONY GIVEN BY SAME IN PRIORLITIGATION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE PREVAILING PARTY FORPURPOSES OF ATIORNEYS' FEESUNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH CASE LAW AND STATUTORYAUTHORITY RE POTENTIAL VALIDITYOF EFPAR'S CLAIM TO BE LIABLE TOLENDER FOR UNDOCUMENTED LOANCOMMITMENT FEE. | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH STATUTORY AUTHORITY REISSUES RE RECOVERABILITY OFATIORNEYS' FEES BY PREVAILINGPARTY IN EFPAR LITIGATION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 10/13/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CALIFORNIA CASE LAW | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| RE RECOVERY OF ATIORNEY'S FEES BYPREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATIONOVER EFPAR'S CLAIM, AND RE HOWPREVAILING PARTY IS DETERMINED. | |||||
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED LETIER TO S. AND M.ORH RE STATE OF THE LAWREGARDING ISSUES IN LITIGATIONWITH EFPAR, APPLICATION OF LAW TOANTICIPATED FACTS TO BE PRESENTEDAT TRIAL, AND ANALYSIS OF LIKELYOUTCOMES ON ISSUES. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RETRIAL OF DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOPROOF OF CLAIM FILED BY EFPAR ANDPREPARING FOR SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/3/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARING FOR TRIAL REDEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 7/22/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH ISSUES RE PREPARING FORTRIAL OF EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 7/22/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY REOBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/12/2014 | TR | ANALYZE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS REEFPAR. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 9/15/2014 | TR | ANALYZE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS ANDSTRATEGY. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 10/1/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE OBJECTION TOEFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 10/14/2014 | TR | REVISE DRAFT EMAILCORRESPONDENCE TO M. ORH RETRIAL EVIDENCEAND TESTIMONY. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE ANALYSISOF EVIDENCE EXPECTED TO BEPRESENTED AT ANY TRIAL WITHEFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/19/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE VALUATION OFPROPERTY WITH AND WITHOUTDOLLARTREE LEASE. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/2/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND LEGALRESEARCH RECEIVED FROM J. LIU REISSUES RE NONMATERIAL BREACH OFCONTRACT RE PREPARATION FOR | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| TRIAL WITH EFPAR AND DRAFTINGTRIAL BRIEF RESAME. | |||||
| 12/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR TRIAL ISSUES. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSPRODUCED BY DEBTOR IN STATECOURT LITIGATION RE PREPARATIONFOR TRIAL RE EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE(PRELIMINARILY) APPRAISAL REPORTRECEIVEDFROM B. LOFGREN. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZE ANALYSISOF EVIDENCE EXPECTED TO BEPRESENTED AT ANY TRIAL WITH EFPARRE SENDING SAME TO CLIENT. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RETRIAL PREPARATION ISSUES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REISSUES RE STIPULATING TO TRIALEXHIBITS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR SALECONTRACT AND RELATEDDOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION FORTRIAL, AND RE ANALYZING ISSUES RESAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH REISSUES RE PREPARATION FOR TRIALWITH EFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/5/2014 | BN | REVIEW DEPOSITION OF BRANDONMICHAELS. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REISSUESUPCOMING TRIAL WITH EFPAR ANDFACTS AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM R. HSU RE OBTAININGDOCUMENTS FROM SAME RE TRIALPREPARATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REOBTAININGDOCUMENTS FROM SAME RE TRIALPREPARATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M.ORH RE ISSUES RE PREPARATION FORTRIAL WITH EFPAR AND HIRING REALESTATE TRANSACTION EXPERT RESAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE LEGAL RESEARCH RE ISSUES RETRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU AND T. RINGSTAD RE ISSUES REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE PREPARATION FORTRIAL WITH EFPAR AND DOCUMENTSRE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REISSUES RE EFPAR TRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE TRIAL PREPARATION ISSUES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT MEMORANDUM ANALYZINGCLAIMS OF VARIOUS PARTIES FILEDAGAINST BANKRUPTCY ESTATE, ANDCLAIMS AND DEFENSES ASSERTED INSTATE COURT LITIGATION BY SAMEPARTIES, AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OFSAME. | 1 | $375 | $375.00 |
| 9/12/2014 | TR | EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO R. HSURE DAMAGE CLAIMS. | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | DRAFT NOTICE OF STATUSCONFERENCE IN CONTESTED MATIERWITHEFPAR. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/2/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHASSISTANT FOR EFPAR'S COUNSEL RESTATUS HEARING IN CONTESTEDMATIER RE EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE COURT'S CALENDAR REAVAILABLE DATES FORRESCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/7/2014 | CAM | ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE INEFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION MATIER. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/7/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'S COUNSELRE ISSUES RE UPCOMING MEDIATION ANDPREPARATION OF JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCES (MULTIPLE) WITH R.HSU AND T. RINGSTAD RE ISSUES RE FACTS ANDISSUES RE EFPAR'S CLAIM AGAINST DEBTOR,DEBTOR'S CLAIMS AGAINST MANDARIN REALTYAND J. KIM, ATIEMPTING TO NEGOTIATESETTLEMENTS WITH SAME; MEET WITH T.RINGSTAD RE SAME AND RE PREPARING FORUPCOMING TRIAL RE EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 1.1 | $375 | $0 |
Exhibit 7
(A) Draft Interrogatories and Production Requests
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DOCUMENTPRODUCTION REQUESTS ANDINTERROGATORIES TO EFPARDEVELOPMENT RE ITS DISPUTEDCLAIM. | 1.9 | $375 | $712.50 |
| 6/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTS ANDINTERROGATORIES TO EFPAR RE ITSDISPUTED CLAIM AND INPREPARATION FOR TRIAL RE SAME. | 1.7 | $375 | $637.50 |
| 6/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF DISCOVERYREQUESTS TO EFPAR RE ITS CLAIM | 1.3 | $375 | $487.50 |
| AND DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO SAME. | |||||
| 6/19/2014 | CAM | DRAFT MULTIPLE SETS OF DEBTOR'SDISCOVERY REQUESTS TO EFPAR RE ITSCLAIM AND DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TOSAME. | 1.7 | $375 | $637.50 |
| 6/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TOEFPAR RE LITIGATION OVER CLAIMFILED BYSAME. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 6/23/2014 | CAM | DRAFT INTERROGATORIES ANDREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS RE EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO SAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 6/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE INTERROGATORIESAND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS AND THINGS TOPROPOUND TO EFPAR. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 6/24/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE DRAFTINTERROGATORIES. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 6/24/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE DRAFT REQUESTSFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 6/25/2014 | CAM | REVISE / FINALIZE DEBTOR'S SPECIALINTERROGATORIES TO EFPAR INPREPARATION FOR TRIAL ONDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFSAME PERINSTRUCTION OF T. RINGSTAD. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 6/25/2014 | CAM | REVISE / FINALIZE DEBTOR'S REQUESTSFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TOEFPAR IN PREPARATION FOR TRIAL ONDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OFSAME PER INSTRUCTION OF T.RINGSTAD. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 6/25/2014 | TR | ANALYZE AND REVISEINTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTSFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REEFPAR CLAIM OBJECTIONS. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSAND F. SIMAS RE EFPAR'S REQUESTFOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONDTO DISCOVERY, PROBLEMS RE SAME,ANDPROPOSED RESOLUTION. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| KAREN AT SAUL REISS' OFFICE REDISCOVERY RESPONSE EXTENSIONREQUESTED BY SAME. | |||||
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND ISSUES RE EFPAR'S REQUEST FOREXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TODISCOVERY AND DEBTOR'S NEED TOCONDUCT FOLLOW UP DISCOVERYPRIOR TO DISCOVERY CUTOFFDEADLINE. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 7/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS REISSUES REDISCOVERY RESPONSE EXTENSION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 7/21/2014 | TR | REVISE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TOS. REISS RE REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONOFTIME RE DISCOVERY. | 0.2 | $625 | $125.00 |
| 7/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DRAFTS OFSTIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDEREXTENDING DISCOVERY RESPONSEAND COMPLETION DEADLINESRECEIVED FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANOMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE REDLINED REVISEDDRAFTS OF STIPULATION ANOPROPOSED ORDER EXTENDINGDISCOVERY RESPONSE ANDCOMPLETION DEADLINES RE DEBTOR'SOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/25/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO COUNSELFOR EFPAR RE STIPULATION ANDORDER CONTINUING VARIOUSDISCOVERY DEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 7/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE STIPULATIONAND ORDER CONTINUING VARIOUSDISCOVERY DEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RESTIPULATION CONTINUINGMEDIATION COMPLETION DEADLINEAND DEADLINE FOR DOWENT TOCONDUCT FOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDSTIPULATION CONTINUING | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| MEDIATION ANO DISCOVERYDEADLINES RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL. | |||||
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE STIPULATION WITH EFPARCONTINUING MEDIATION ANDDISCOVERYDEADLINES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | DRAFT STIPULATION CONTINUINGMEDIATION COMPLETION DEADLINEANDDEADLINE FOR DEBTOR TO CONDUCTFOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL RESTIPULATION CONTINUINGMEDIATION COMPLETION DEADLINEANO DEADLINEFOR DEBTOR TO CONDUCT FOLLOWUP DISCOVERY AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED ORDERCONTINUING MEDIATIONCOMPLETION DEADLINE ANDDEADLINE FOR DEBTOR TO CONDUCTFOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO S. REISS AND F. SIMABRE STIPULATION WITH EFPARCONTINUING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE,DEADLINE FOR FILING JOINT PRE-TRIALORDER AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF FORDEBTOR TO COMPLETE FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING REVISIONS TOSTIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDEREXTENDING DISCOVERY RESPONSEAND COMPLETION DEADLINESRECEIVED FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 7/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REDLINED REVISIONS TOSTIPULATION ANO PROPOSED ORDEREXTENDING DISCOVERY RESPONSEANO COMPLETION DEADLINESRECEIVED FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 7/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZESTIPULATION WITH EFPAR ANO ORDERCONTINUING DISCOVERY DEADLINES. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/8/2014 | CAM | DRAFT STIPULATION WITH EFPAR AND | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUINGDISCOVERY DEADLINE AND JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER FILING DEADLINE. | |||||
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING STIPULATION WITHEFPAR CONTINUING PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE, DEADLINE FOR FILINGJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER ANDDISCOVERY CUTOFF FOR DEBTOR TOCOMPLETE FOLLOW UP DISCOVERY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | DRAFT STIPULATION WITH EFPARCONTINUING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE,DEADLINE FOR FILING JOINT PRE-TRIALORDER AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF FORDEBTOR TO COMPLETE FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/13/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE DISCOVERY,POSSIBLE DEPOSITIONS AND POSSIBLENEED TOCOMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS RE EFPARCLAIM. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE STATUTORY AND CASELAW AUTHORITY RE REQUIREMENTSFOR THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS,SERVICE OF SAME AND PAYMENT OFWITNESS FEES. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 8/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REFEASIBILITY OF PREPARING PRE-TRIALORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER INLIGHT OF EFPAR'S FAILURE TORESPOND TO DISCOVERY. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REEFPAR'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TODEBTOR'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS ANDLOCAL RULE REQUIREMENTS RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REEFPAR'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TODISCOVERY, AND INABILITY TO TAKEDEPOSITIONS OR TO PREPARE PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION PRIOR TO TAKINGDEPOSITIONS OR EFPAR'S DOCUMENTPRODUCTION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITIONS, FAILURE OF EFPAR TOPRODUCE DOCUMENTS ANDADEQUATELY RESPOND TO OTHERDISCOVERY REQUESTS, ARRANGINGMEET AND CONFER RE SAME, AND REPREPARATION OF STIPULATIONEXTENDING MEDIATION COMPLETIONDEADLINE AND DEADLINE FORDEBTOR TO CONDUCT FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/13/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE OBTAININGDOCUMENTPRODUCTION AND DISCOVERYRESPONSES FROM SAME, AND RERESCHEDULING MEDIATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL REISSUES RE ARRANGING DEPOSITIONSOF EFPAR'S TRIAL WITNESSES ANDARRANGING MEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE PRODUCTIONOF DOCUMENTS BY SAME ANDPRODUCING PARTIES FORDEPOSITIONS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/21/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DOCUMENTPRODUCTION AND RE SCHEDULINGMULTIPLE DEPOSITIONS, ANDANALYZE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSEDDEPOSITION DATES. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 8/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED CORRESPONDENCETO EFPAR'S COUNSEL RE ISSUES REFAILURE OF SAME TO PRODUCEDOCUMENTS, INADEQUATERESPONSES BY SAME TOINTERROGATORIES, ARRANGING MEETAND CONFER CONFERENCE, ANDEFFECT OF INADEQUATE RESPONSESON DEBTOR'S ABILITY TO PREPAREJOINT PRE- TRIAL ORDER AND TOTAKE DEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 8/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DOCUMENT | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| PRODUCTION ISSUES. | |||||
| 8/30/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE ISSUES RE ARRANGING MEET ANOCONFER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REFAILURE OF EFPAR TO ADEQUATELYRESPOND TO DISCOVERY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/2/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSIN PREPARATION FOR MEET ANDCONFER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REDISCOVERY DISPUTE REGARDINGEFPAR'S RESPONSES TO DEBTOR'SDOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTSAND INTERROGATORIES. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/4/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE DISCOVERYISSUES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/4/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DISCOVERY MEET ANDCONFER. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW RE DRAFTINGCORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE IMPROPRIETY OF SAMEFAILING TO RESPOND TOINTERROGATORY RE EXPECTEDTESTIMONY OF EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE IMPROPRIETY OF SAMEFAILING TO RESPOND TOINTERROGATORY RE EXPECTEDTESTIMONY OF EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL REDEPOSITIONS AND SCHEDULINGMEDIATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE NOTICEDDEPOSITIONS AND ARRANGINGMEDIATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE NOTICEDDEPOSITIONS, ARRANGINGMEDIATION AND STIPULATION | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| CONTINUING VARIOUS DISCOVERYAND MEDIATION DEADLINES. | |||||
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM J. TORKANRE NOTICED DEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SBROKER, J. TORKAN,RE ISSUES RE NOTICE OF DEPOSITONOF SAME AND RE ARRANGINGDEPOSITION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND OBJECTIONTO NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OFJ. KIM IN CONNECTION WITH EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION RECEIVE FROMCOUNSEL FOR KIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/19/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE SCHEDULEDDEPOSITIONS OF TRIAL WITNESSES OFSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/26/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE DEBTORTAKING DEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'SWITNESSES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/2/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE SCHEDULING DEPOSITON OF J.KIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/4/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. LIU REOBTAINING DOCUMENTS ANDINFORMATION FROM SAME REDEPOSITION OF J. KIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. KIM'SCOUNSEL RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. KIM'SCOUNSEL RE ARRANGING DEPOSITIONOF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM J. KIM'SCOUNSEL RE ARRANGINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. LIUAND R. HSU RE DEPOSITION OF J. KIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM J. KIM'SCOUNSEL RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. KIM'SCOUNSEL RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| CORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS REARRANGING DEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'STRIAL WITNESSES. | |||||
| 9/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSAND F. SIMAB RE ARRANGINGDEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES, OBTAININGSUPPLEMENTALINTERROGATORY RESPONSES FROMSAME, ARRANGING DISCOVERY MEETAND CONFER AND RE PREPARATIONOF JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION ANDORDER. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM J. TORKANRE ISSUES RE SCHEDULED DEPOSITIONOF SAME, AND OBJECTIONS OF SAMETO DEPOSITION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J.TORKAN AND S. REISS RE ISSUES REISSUES RE ARRANGING DEPOSITIONOF J. TORKAN, AND RE ISSUES RELOCATION OF DEPOSITION ANDOBJECTIONS OF DEPONENT TODEPOSITION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE E-MAILS FROMATTORNEY SERVICE RE EFFORTS OFSAME TO SERVE DEPOSITIONSUBPOENAS ON J. KIM AND J.TORKAN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM J. KIM RESCHEDULEDDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHKAREN, ASSISTANT TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, RE ISSUES RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITIONS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | SECOND TELEPHONE CONFERENCEWITH KAREN, ASSISTANT TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, RE ISSUES RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITIONS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE E-MAIL FROMCOURT REPORTER AGENCY REARRANGING DEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'STRIAL WITNESSES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE SECOND E-MAIL FROM COURT REPORTERAGENCY REARRANGING DEPOSITIONS OF EFPAR'STRIAL WITNESSES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| HSU RE OBTAINING DOCUMENTSFROM SAME RE TAKING DEPOSITIONSAND TRIAL PREPARATION REOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | |||||
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHDAVID WAN'S COUNSEL, B.BROUSSEAU, RE OBTAINING COPY OFMR. WAN'S FILE AND RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OFSAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONOF S. RAHBAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE SCHEDULED DEPOSITIONOF K. PARRY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DEPOSITION OF K.PARRY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE SUPPLEMENTALDISCOVERY RESPONSES RECEIVEDFROM SAME, AND RE SCHEDULEDDEPOSITIONS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITIONS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DEPOSITION OF S.RAHBAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHKAREN, ASSISTANT FOR EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, RESCHEDULED DEPOSITION OF S.RAHBAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHKAREN, ASSISTANT FOR EFPAR'SCOUNSEL, RE SCHEDULED DEPOSITIONOF J. TORKAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.BROUSSEAU RE ISSUES RESCHEDULING DEPOSITION OF D. WANAND RE OBTAINING DISCOVERYDOCUMENTS FROM SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DETAILEDCORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISS RESCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS OF B.MICHAELS AND D. WAN, AND ISSUESRE SAME, CONTESTED MATTERSTATUS CONFERENCE SET BY COURTAND ISSUES RE SAME, AND RE | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL. | |||||
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.REISS RE ISSUES RE SCHEDULINGDEPOSITIONS, AND CONTINUINGTRIAL AND RELATED DEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.MICHAELS RE RESCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF SAME AND RE ISSUESRE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. LIURE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONS TAKEN INEFPAR MATTER AND RE ISSUES REPREPARING FOR UPCOMINGDEPOSITION OFD. WAN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/1/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO J. LIURE OBTAINING INFORMATION ANDDOCUMENTS FROM SAME REDEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH B.BROUSSEAU RE RESCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE ISSUES RE ARRANGING DEPOSITIONOFD. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH B.BROUSSEAU RE RESCHEDULINGDEPOSITION OF D.WAN AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/7/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.BROUSSEAU AND S. REISSRE ISSUES RE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/9/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE ISSUES RE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.BROUSSEAU AND S. REISS RE ISSUESRE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS REDEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/15/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.BROUSSEAU RE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONOF D.WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.BROUSSEAU RE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONOF D. WAN AND ARRANGINGINTERPRETER FOR SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. HSU REARRANGINGTRANSLATOR FOR DEPOSITION OF D.WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/15/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M.ORH RE ISSUES INVOLVED IN EFPARLITIGATION AND NEED TO HIRETRANSLATOR FOR DEPOSITION OF D.WAN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.BROUSSEAU RE DEPOSITION OF D.WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO J. LIU REISSUES RE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH R. HSU ANDJ. LIU RE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/23/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S. REISSRE ARRANGING DEPOSITION OFEFPAR'S EXPERT, B. MICHAELS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHDEBTOR'S APPRAISER, B. LOFGREN, REISSUESRE DECLARATION AND VALUATIONPROVIDED BY EFPAR'S EXPERT, B.MICHAELS, RE TAKING DEPOSITION OFSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH SAUL REISSRE ARRANGING DEPOSITION OFBRANDON MICHAELS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHDEBTOR'S APPRAISER, B. LOFGREN, RETRIAL DECLARATION OF EFPAR'SEXPERT, B. MICHAELS, ANDATIACHMENTS, AND RE TAKINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUENTS INPREPARATION FOR TAKINGDEPOSITIONS OF S. RAHBAR AND J.TORKAN, AND PREPARING EXHIBITSTO SAME. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE QUESTIONS FORDEPOSITION OF S. RAHBAR, ANDANALYZE ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE CASE LAW ANDFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RE | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| TAKING DEPOSITIONS INPREPARATION FOR EFPAR TRIAL. | |||||
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLEDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM M.ORH REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL WITHEFPAR AND TAKING DEPOSITIONS OFEFPAR'S TRIAL WITNESSES. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND MULTIPLEDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM R. HSUIN PREPARATION FOR TAKINGDEPOSITIONS RE TRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND NOTES IN PREPARATION FORDEPOSITION OF S. RAHAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW, ANALYZE AND PREPAREDOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION FORDEPOSITION OF J. TORKANTOMORROW. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVEDFROM R.HSU AND J. LIU IN PREPARATION FORTAKING DEPOSITIONS. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE FOR DEPOSITION OF J.TORKAN, REVIEW AND PREPAREDOCUMENTS FOR SAME. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF EFPAR'SBROKER, J. TORKAN. | 3.6 | $375 | $1,350.00 |
| 9/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DEPOSITION NOTICES ANDSUBPOENAS FOR D. WAN ANDEFPAR'SBROKER; REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZESAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/28/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS,AND PREPARE DOCUMENTS ANDNOTES INPREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF J.KIM. | 2.8 | $375 | $1,050.00 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND PREPARE DOCUMENTS FORDEPOSITION OF J. KIM. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | DRAFT WAIVER OF ATTORNEY CLIENTAND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGESFOR SIGNATURE OF M. ORH ATINSISTENCE OF COUNSEL FOR J. KIMIN ORDER TOHAVE HIM TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REWAIVER OF ATTORNEY CLIENT ANDWORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES IN | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| CONNECTION WITH DEPOSITION OF J.KIM. | |||||
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE INSISTENCE OFCOUNSEL FOR J. KIM ON DOWENTSIGNING WRITTEN WAIVER OFATTORNEY CLIENT ANO WORKPRODUCT PRIVILEGES AS CONDITIONFOR J. KIM TESTIFYING ATDEPOSITION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/29/2014 | TR | CONFER WITH C. MINIER REDEPOSITIONS OF J. KIM AND F.EFRAIM. | 1 | $625 | $625.00 |
| 9/30/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE, AND PREPAREDOCUMENTS AND NOTES INPREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF F.EFRAIM. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 9/30/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONS INEFPAR MATTER. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 10/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND DRAFT QUESTIONS INPREPARATIONFOR DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 3.9 | $375 | $1,462.50 |
| 10/17/2014 | BN | DRAFT AREAS FOR QUESTIONS INDEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 10/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / ANALYZE / ORGANIZEDOCUMENTS AND NOTES INPREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF D.WAN. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 10/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RETAKING DEPOSITION OF B. MICHAELSRE EFPAR LITIGATION. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/27/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS,AND PREPARE DOCUMENTS ANDQUESTIONS, RE TAKING DEPOSITIONOF EFPAR'S VALUATION EXPERT, B.MICHAELS. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSIN PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OFOFEFPAR'S VALUATION EXPERT, B.MICHAELS. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTRECEIVED FROM B. LOFGREN INPREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF B.MICHAELS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE DEPOSITIONOF EFPAR'S VALUATION EXPERT. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/28/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| CORRESPONDENCE FROM S. REISS REDEPOSITION OF BRANDONMICHAELS. | |||||
| 10/29/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND PREPARE NOTES FORDEPOSITION OF BRANDONMICHAELS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL DECLARATIONS FROMEFPAR AND DEPOSITION STRATEGY. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/14/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DEPOSITION NOTICES ANDSUBPOENAS FOR F. EFRAIM, S.RABHAR, K. PERRY, J. KIM, AND J.TORKAN; REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZESAME. | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF TAKINGDEPOSITION OF FRED EFRAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF TAKINGDEPOSITION OF J. KIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF TAKINGDEPOSITION OF J. TORKAN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF TAKINGDEPOSITION OF K. PERRY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAFOR JULIAN TORKAN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAFOR JAE KIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVISE / FINALIZE MULTIPLE NOTICESOF DEPOSITION AND DEPOSITIONSUBPOENAS RE EFPAR'S TRIALWITNESSES. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF TAKINGDEPOSITION OF S. RAHBAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | PREPARE NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONAND SUBPOENA FOR EFPAR'S REALESTATE BROKER TESTIFYINGREGARDING VALUE OF PROPERTY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/29/2014 | CAM | ATIEND DEPOSITION OF EFPAR'SPROPERTY VALUATION EXPERT,BRANDON MICHAELS. | 5.5 | $375 | $2,062.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/25/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF S. RAHBAR,AND MEET WITH EFPAR'S COUNSELAFTERWARDS. | 2.9 | $375 | $1,087.50 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF JAE KIM. | 4.8 | $375 | $1,800.00 |
| 9/30/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF FARIDEFRAIM. | 5 | $375 | $1,875.00 |
| 10/17/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF D. WAN. | 5.6 | $375 | $2,100.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/2/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DOCUMENTPRODUCTION BY SAME TO DEBTOR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/2/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE MEET ANDCONFER REGARDING DEBTOR'SREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ANDINTERROGATORIES. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DOCUMENTPRODUCTION BY SAME AND RESTIPULATION RE CONTINUINGCONTESTED MATIER DEADLINES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE DOCUMENTPRODUCTION, PREPARATION OFJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER ANDSCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE ISSUES RE DIRECT TESTIMONYDECLARATIONS FILED BY EFPAR, ANDRE OBTAINING DOCUMENTS FROMHIM AND M. ORH. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE EFPAR'S SUPPLEMENTALDISCOVERY RESPONSES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EFPAR'SDOCUMENT PRODUCTION RECEIVEDFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 9/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE(PRELIMINARILY) MULTIPLE E-MAILSAND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BYEFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND PRELIMINARILYANALYZE SUPPLEMENTALINTERROGATORY RESPONSES ANDRESPONSES TO REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSRECEIVED FROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZESUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORYRESPONSES RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZESUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TOREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROMEFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 9/29/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS FROM B. BROUSSEAURE STATE COURT DISCOVERYCONDUCTED RE LITIGATION WITHEFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 10/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE PARTY ANDNON-PARTY DOCUMENTPRODUCTION FROM MULTI-PARTYSTATE COURT LITIGATION RECEIVEDFROM B. BROUSSEAU REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL WITHEFPAR, AND RE PREPARING JOINTPRE-TRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER, EXHIBITLIST AND EXHIBIT BINDER RE SAME. | 4.2 | $375 | $1,575.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND REVISEDSTIPULATION CONTINUING VARIOUSDEADLINES RECEIVED FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/12/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE PREPARATIONOF JOINT PRE- TRIAL ORDER,SCHEDULING DEPOSITIONS AND REEFPAR FURNISHINGSUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERYRESPONSES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDSTIPULATION RE JPTO, PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE AND DISCOVERYCOMPLETION DEADLINE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/30/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURT'SENTERED ORDER EXTENDINGVARIOUS DISCOVERY DEADLINES REDEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO EFPAR'SCLAIM. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE COURT'S ENTRY OFORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERYCOMPLETIONAND MEDIATION COMPLETIONDEADLINES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 9/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURT'SENTERED ORDER CONTINUING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND DEADLINEFOR FILING PRE-TRIAL ORDER, ANDEXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEBTORTO COMPLETE FOLLOW UPDISCOVERY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RESERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENASON EFPAR'S THIRD PARTY TRIALWITNESSES AND PROVIDING SAMEWITH WITNESSFEES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 8/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RESERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENASON THIRD-PARTY WITNESSES REOBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REARRANGING MEETING WITH R. HSUANDT. RINGSTAD TO DISCUSS TRIAL OF | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM ANDPOSSIBILITY OF SETTLING SAME. | |||||
| 9/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REARRANGING MEETING. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH R. HSU REARRANGING MEETING WITHMICHELLE AND SAHM ORH. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/19/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REMEETING RE EFPAR LITIGATION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/21/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR REQUESTFOR EXTENSION OF TIME REDISCOVERY.DISCOVERY RESPONSE EXTENSION. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 9/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER ONSTIPULATION WITH EFPAR RE JOINTPRE-TRIAL ORDER, DISCOVERYCOMPLETION DEADLINE AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 9/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE SUPPLEMENTALDISCOVERY RESPONSES. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 9/22/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSELFOR J. KIM RE DEPOSITION NOTICEAND SUBPOENA SENT TO SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 10/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / ORGANIZE NOTES ANDDOCUMENTS FROM DEPOSITION OFD. WAN. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/26/2014 | CAM | (NO CHARGE) REVIEW CORRESPONDENCEFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL RE ARRANGING MEETAND CONFER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REFAILURE OF SAME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY. | 0.4 | $375 | $0.00 |
| 8/27/2014 | CAM | (NO CHARGE) REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REEFPAR'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY RESPONDTO DISCOVERY, ARRANGING MEET ANDCONFER RE SAME, AND RE NEED TO PREPAREJOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION DESPITE NOTHAVING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION FROMEFPAR YET. | 0.4 | $375 | $0.00 |
| 8/30/2014 | CAM | (NO CHARGE) REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE | 0.1 | $375 | $0.00 |
| FROM J. KIM'S COUNSEL RE ARRANGINGDEPOSITION OF SAME. | |||||
| 10/3/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B. BROUSSEAURE DEPOSITION OF D. WAN ANDSCHEDULING ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $0.00 |
| 10/29/2014 | CAM | ATTEND DEPOSITION OF BRANDON MICHAELS. | 1 | $375 | $0.00 |
Exhibit 8
(A) Correspondence with B. Lofgren re: Trial Declaration
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE PREPARATION OFTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DETAILED CORRESPONDENCETO B. LOFGREN RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONYTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAMEAND EXHIBITS. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE PREPARATIONOF DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO S.CRIST AND B. LOFGREN RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF DECLARATION OFSAME AND EXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO B. LOFGREN REREVISED PARTIAL DRAFT OFDECLARATION OF SAME ANDPOSSIBLEDATA TO INCLUDE IN DECLARATION. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO B. LOFREN REPROVIDING REQUESTED DOCUMENTSTO SAME RE PREPARATION OFTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME ANDEXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO B.LOFGREN RE PROVIDING DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPT AND DOCUMENTSTO SAME RE PREPARATION OF TRIAL | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| DECLARATION OF SAME. | |||||
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO B. LOFGREN REPRELIMINARY DRAFT OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME ANDFINISHINGSAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE POSSIBLE SUBJECT OFDISCUSSION TO INCLUDE IN TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/23/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO APPRAISER B.LOFGREN RE FURTHER REVISED TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME, ANDCOMMENTS AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO B. LOFGREN REREVISED DECLARATION OF SAMEAND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO B.LOFGREN RE PROVIDING ADDITIONALINFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TOSAME RE PREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OFSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO APPRAISER B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE FURTHERREVISED TRIAL DECLARATION OFSAME AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE PREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGREN REPREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGREN'SASSISTANT, S. CRIST, RE OBTAININGINFORMATION FROM SAME RE | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| DECLARATION OF B. LOFGREN REPROPERTY VALUATION ISSUES. | |||||
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTSRECEIVED FROM B. LOFGREN REPREPARATION OF DECLARATION OFSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGREN REISSUES RE PREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW, ANALYZE AND REVISE DRAFTOF TRIAL DECLARATIONRECEIVED FROM APPRAISER B.LOFGREN. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE E-MAIL FROMB. LOFGREN RE FINALIZING TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE REVISION TOTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE STATUTORY / FEDERALRULE AUTHORITY RE EXPERTWITNESS REPORT. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.CRIST RE PREPARATION OFDECLARATION OF B. LOFGREN ANDEXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/19/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN'S ASSISTANT, CRIST, REOBTAINING INFORMATION FROMSAME RE DECLARATION OF B.LOFGREN RE PROPERTY VALUATIONISSUES. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE NUMEROUSDOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPTS OF F. EFRAIM AND B.MICHAELS RE PROVIDINGINFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TOB. LOFGREN RE PREPARATION OFTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME REPROPERTY VALUATION ISSUES. | 2.4 | $375 | $900.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PROVIDING ADDITIONALINFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TOB. LOFGREN RE PREPARATION OFTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/20/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL DECLARATION OF B.LOFGREN. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT FURTHER REVISIONS TO TRIALDECLARATION OF APPRAISER B.LOFGREN. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO M.ORH RE ISSUES RE PREPARATIONOF TRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE TRIALDECLARATION OF BRAD LOFGREN. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHEMPLOYEES OF COMMERCE ESCROWRE OBTAINING DECLARATION OFESCROW OFFICER FOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/21/2014 | CAM | SECOND TELEPHONE CONFERENCEWITH I. CHAE AT COMMERCEESCROW RE OBTAININGDECLARATION OF SAME RE ISSUES REEFPAR TRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHREPRESENTATIVE OF COMMERCEESCROW RE ISSUES RE OBTAININGDECLARATION FROM SAME REESCROW WITH EFPAR INPREPARATION FOR TRIAL. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| LEGAL COUNSEL FOR COMMERCEESCROW RE ISSUES RE OBTAININGDECLARATION FROM ESCROWOFFICER IN PREPARATION FOR EFPARTRIAL. | |||||
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO S. DAVIS, COUNSELFOR COMMERCE ESCROW, REOBTAINING TRIAL DECLARATION OF I.CHAE AND ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND TRIALDECLARATION OF I. CHAE, RECEIVEDFROM COUNSEL FOR COMMERCEESCROW. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.DAVIS, COUNSEL FOR COMMERCEESCROW, RE ISSUES RE OBTAININGTRIAL DECLARATION OF IRIS CHAE | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTRECEIVED FROM R. RIEMER REPREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING TRIAL DECLARATIONOF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONEXPERT R. RIEMER. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE PREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDDECLARATION OF R. RIEMERRECEIVED FROM SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM R. RIEMERREREVISIONS TO TRIAL DECLARATIONOF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE TRIAL DECLARATION OF M. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| ORH. | |||||
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES READDRESSING CERTAIN TOPICS INTRIAL DECLARATION OF M. ORH. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL DECLARATION OF M.ORH. | 2.4 | $375 | $900.00 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL DECLARATION OF M.ORH. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE TRIAL DECLARATIONOF M. ORH. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REVISIONS TO TRIALDECLARATION OF M. ORH PERREQUEST OF SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | TR | REVISE TRIAL DECLARATION OF M.ORH. | 1.4 | $625 | $875.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL DECLARATION OF R.RIEMER. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE TRIAL DECLARATION OF R.RIEMER AND EXHIBITS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT / REVIEW / REVISE TRIALDECLARATION OF R. RIEMER. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | FURTHER REVIEW / REVISE TRIALDECLARATION OF R. RIEMER. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | TR | REVIEW AND REVISE DRAFT TRIALDECLARATION OF RICHARD REIMER | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO R.RIEMER RE DRAFT OFDECLARATION OF SAME FOR REVIEWAND COMMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO R.RIEMER RE TRIAL DECLARATION ANDTRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING TRIALDECLARATION OF M. ORH. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH READDRESSING CERTAIN ISSUES INTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH REREVISIONS REQUESTED BY SAME TOTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND EXECUTED TRIALDECLARATION RECEIVED FROM M.ORH. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND ISSUES RE DRAFTINGREVISIONS TO TRIAL DECLARATIONOF M. ORH PER REQUEST OF SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE FINALIZEDTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME FOREXECUTION. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE DRAFT OFDECLARATION OF SAME FOR REVIEWAND COMMENT. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | DRAFT MULTIPLE E-MAILS TO M. ORHRE ISSUES RE PREPARATION OFTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | FINALIZE TRIAL DECLARATION OF I.CHAE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL DECLARATION OF IRISCHAE. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | FOURTH TELEPHONE CONFERENCEWITH M. ORH RE ISSUES REFINALIZATION AND FILING OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| ORH RE ISSUES RE PREPARATIONOF TRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | |||||
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | SECOND TELEPHONE CONFERENCEWITH M. ORH RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF, AND REVISIONSTO, TRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/26/2014 | CAM | THIRD TELEPHONE CONFERENCEWITH M. ORH RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF, AND REVISIONSTO, TRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO R.RIEMER RE ISSUES REPREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.RIEMER RE ISSUES RE FINALIZINGTRIAL DECLARATION OF SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 11/25/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE PREPARATION OF TRIALDECLARATIONS OF M. ORH AND R.RIEMER, AND RE OTHER TRIALPREPARATION ISSUES. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
Exhibit 9
(A) Draft Trial Brief
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/3/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 12/5/2014 | BN | WORK ON TRIAL BRIEF IN EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION LITIGATION. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | DRAFT SECTION OF EFPAR TRIALBRIEF RE DAMAGES FOR BREACH OFCONTRACT TO SELL REAL PROPERTY. | 3.8 | $300 | $1,140.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | DRAFT SECTION OF EFPAR TRIALBRIEF RE DAMAGES FOR BREACH OFCONTRACT TO SELL REAL PROPERTY. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF RECONTESTED MATTER TRIAL AGAINSTEFPAR. | 1.1 | $375 | $412.50 |
| 12/11/2014 | BN | DRAFT ARGUMENT RE IMPOSSIBILITYFOR EFPAR TRIAL BRIEF. | 2.5 | $300 | $750.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT TRIAL BRIEF. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | REVISE ARGUMENT RE DAMAGESFOR EFPAR OBJECTION TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | WORK ON TRIAL BRIEF AND ISSUESRELATED THERETO. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | REVISE LEGAL ARGUMENT REIMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF EFPAROBJECTION TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | REVIEW AND REVISE TRIAL BRIEFDRAFT OF STATEMENT OF FACTS. | 0.9 | $300 | $270.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 3.1 | $375 | $1,162.50 |
| 12/12/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REVISIONS TO TRIAL BRIEFPER INSTRUCTION OF T. RINGSTADREDAMAGES ISSUES. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 12/12/2014 | TR | WORK ON TRIAL BRIEF FOR EFPARTRIAL. | 2.5 | $625 | $1,562.50 |
| 12/14/2014 | BN | REVISE EFPAR TRIAL BRIEF. | 3.9 | $300 | $1,170.00 |
| 12/14/2014 | TR | WORK ON TRAIL BRIEF FOR EFPARTRIAL. | 1.5 | $625 | $937.50 |
| 12/15/2014 | BN | REVISE CONCLUSION IN EFPAR TRIALBRIEF. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | BN | REVIEW FINAL REVIEW OF EFPARTRIAL BRIEF. | 2.1 | $300 | $630.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE DEBTOR'S TRIALBRIEF. | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | TR | REVISE TRIAL BRIEF. | 2.6 | $625 | $1,625.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/9/2014 | BN | REVIEW ARGUMENTS RE DAMAGESFOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELLREAL PROPERTY. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER TIME OFPRINCIPALS OF BUSINESS AREINCLUDABLE AS DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT TO SELLREAL PROPERTY. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | REVIEW DECLARATION OFAPPRAISER FOR USE IN ARGUMENTREDAMAGES FOR BREACH OFCONTRACT TO SELL REAL PROPERTY. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER TIME OFPRINCIPALS OF BUSINESS ISINCLUDABLE AS DAMAGES FORBREACH OF CONTRACT. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/5/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE NONMATERIALBREACH AND WAIVER OF BREACH. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | ANALYZE IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSETO BREACH OF CONTRACT. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE IMPOSSIBILITYDEFENSE TO BREACH OF CONTRACT. | 4.4 | $300 | $1,320.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE IMPOSSIBILITYDEFENSE TO BREACH OF CONTRACT. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE POSSIBLECOUNTER-ARGUMENTS TO MUTUALMISTAKE AND IMPOSSIBILITYARGUMENTS. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE LEGALAUTHORITIES PREPARED BY B.NELSON RE NONMATERIAL BREACHAND IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSES REDRAFTINGDEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE WAIVERDEFENSE TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE NONMATERIALBREACH DEFENSE TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE MUTUALMISTAKE DEFENSE TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE IMPOSSIBILITYDEFENSE TO EFPAR CLAIM. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/12/2014 | TR | ANALYZE EVIDENCE AND LEGALISSUES RE DEFENSES TO BREACH OFCONTRACT CLAIM. | 1.5 | $625 | $937.50 |
| 12/15/2014 | BN | RESEARCH ADDITIONAL DEFENSESTO BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM. | 1.4 | $300 | $420.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/3/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 12/12/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE DRAFTING DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEFFOR UPCOMING TRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 1 | $375 | $375.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSRE REVISING DEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/5/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR TRIALBRIEF. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHCOURT'S LAW CLERK RE COURT NOTHAVING SET DEADLINE RE FILING OFPARTIES' TRIAL BRIEFS ANDRESOLVING ISSUES RE SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE TRIAL BRIEFSUBMISSION DEADLINE. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | PREPARE STIPULATION BETWEENDEBTOR AND EFPAR RESOLVINGLACK OF ESTABLISHED DEADLINEFOR THE FILING OF TRIAL BRIEFS PERINSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROMCOURT'S CHAMBERS; REVIEW /REVISE SAME. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND EXECUTEDSTIPULATION ESTABLISHINGDEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO FILETRIAL BRIEFS RECEIVEDFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO S. REISS RE ISSUES RELACK OF ESTABLISHED DEADLINEFOR THE FILING OF TRIAL BRIEFS,INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROMCOURT'S CHAMBERS RE SAME, ANDRE DRAFT OF STIPULATIONRESOLVING SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | PREPARE PROPOSED ORDER ONSTIPULATION BETWEEN DEBTORANDEFPAR RESOLVING LACK OFESTABLISHED DEADLINE FOR THEFILING OF TRIAL BRIEFS. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH S.REISS RE ISSUES RE S. LACK OFESTABLISHED DEADLINE FOR THEFILING OF TRIAL BRIEFS,INSTRUCTIONS RECEIVED FROM | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| COURT'S CHAMBERS RE SAME, ANDRE AGREEING TOSTIPULATION TO RESOLVE SAME. |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH LEGAL AUTHORITY REPREPARATION OF DEBTOR'S TRIALBRIEF. | 1.3 | $375 | $487.50 |
| 12/12/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH CASE LAW ANDSTATUTORY AUTHORITY REPREPARATION OFDEBTOR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 1.6 | $375 | $600.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/15/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL BRIEF OF EFPAR. | 1.1 | $625 | $687.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S TRIAL BRIEF. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S TRIALBRIEF. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S TRIALBRIEF AND AMENDED TRIALEXHIBIT LIST AND ATIACHMENTSFILED BY EFPAR. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
Exhibit 10
(A) Draft Motion in Limine re: Loan Fee Damages
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | BN | DRAFT MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF LOAN FEEDAMAGES. | 1.1 | $300 | $330.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S MOTION IN LIMINETO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OFCOMMITMENT FEE AND MINIMUMINTEREST CHARGES PORTION OFEFPAR'S CLAIM ON STATUTE OFFRAUDS GROUNDS. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | REVIEW DEPOSITION OF FARZADSEAN RAHBAR FOR USE IN MOTION INLIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OFLOAN COMMITMENTDAMAGES. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TO | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF LOAN FEEDAMAGES. | |||||
| 12/8/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGESFROM LOAN COMMITMENTAGREEMENT. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH ADDITIONAL CASE LAWANO STATUTORY AUTHORITY REISSUES RE STATUTE OF FRAUDSDEFENSE TO INTEREST ANOCOMMITMENT FEE BEING SOUGHT BYEFPAR AS PART OF ITS CLAIM | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE DEBTOR'S MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 1TO EXCLUDEEVIDENCE RE ALLEGED OBLIGATIONTO SR CAPITAL RELATED TOFINANCING COMMITMENT. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | TR | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE RESTATUTE OF FRAUDS. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGESFROM LOAN COMMITMENTAGREEMENT. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF LOANCOMMITMENT FEE DAMAGES. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/5/2014 | BN | DRAFT MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE VALUATION EVIDENCEFROM BRANDON MICHAELS. | 2.2 | $300 | $660.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE VALUATION EVIDENCEFROM BRANDON MICHAELS. | 1.4 | $300 | $420.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | DRAFT DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OFMOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDEVALUATION EVIDENCE FROMBRANDON MICHAELS. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | PREPARE PORTIONS OF DEPOSITIONFOR ATTACHMENT TO MOTION INLIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE FROMVALUE OF BRANDONMICHAELS. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF VALUE FROMBRANDON MICHAELS. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE MOTION INLIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OFVALUE FROM BRANDON MICHAELS. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE MOTION IN LIMINETO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE BY BRANDONMICHAELS, SUPPORTINGDECLARATION AND EXHIBIT. | 1 | $375 | $375.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | REVISE / FINALIZE AND PREPAREEXHIBIT TO DEBTOR'S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 3 FOR EFPAR TRIAL PERINSTRUCTION OF T. RINGSTAD. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/7/2014 | BN | DRAFT MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE VALUATION EVIDENCEFROM FRED EFRAIM. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | DRAFT MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE VALUATION EVIDENCEFROM FRED EFRAIM. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE TOEXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF VALUE FROMFRED EFRAIM. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S MOTION IN LIMINENO. 2 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY/ EVIDENCE RE VALUE OF PROPERTYBY F. EFRAIM. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER THE LOANALLEGEDLY GIVING RISE TOEFPAR'S LOAN COMMITMENT FEEDAMAGES WAS REQUIRED TO BE INWRITING. | 0.6 | $300 | $180.00 |
| 12/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE MOTION INLIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE ONLOAN FEE DAMAGES. | 0.4 | $300 | $120.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE ISSUES, CASE LAW ANDSTATUTORY AUTHORITY RECOMMITMENT FEE AND MINIMUMINTEREST CHARGES PORTION OFEFPAR'S CLAIM THAT SR CAPITAL ISSEEKING TO COLLECT FROMEFPAR, AND OBJECTING TO /PREPARING MOTION IN LIMINE RESAME. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2014 | TR | ANALYZE STRATEGY RE EXPERTTESTIMONY AND POSSIBLE MOTIONIN LIMINE FOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 0.3 | $625 | $187.50 |
| 12/4/2014 | TR | WORK ON ISSUES AND STRATEGY REOBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE ANDPOSSIBLE MOTION IN LIMINE. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE CASES DISCUSSINGCALIFORNIA LAW RE STATUTE OFFRAUDS ANO LOANS FOR MORETHAN $100,000. | 1.1 | $300 | $330.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | ANALYZE STATUTE OF FRAUDSISSUES. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2014 | BN | PREPARE MOTION IN LIMINE 1 FORFILING. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | BN | PREPARE MOTION IN LIMINE 1 FORFILING. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND MOTION INLININE FILED BY EFPAR RECEIVEDFROM EFPAR'S COUNSEL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE ISSUES RE MOTIONS INLIMINE FILED BY DEBTOR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDENCLOSURE TO EFPAR'S COUNSEL REISSUES RE OMITIED PAGE FROMEFPAR'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.ONE, AND RE EFPAR FILING REQUIREDSUPPLEMENT TO JPTO RESTIPULATING TO DEBTOR'S TRIAL | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| EXHIBITS. |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/12/2014 | TR | ANALYZE MOTION IN LIMINE FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTIONSIN LIMINE. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TOMOTION IN LIMINE 1. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TOMOTION IN LIMINE 2. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S OPPOSITION TOMOTION IN LIMINE 3. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S MOTION IN LIMINE. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE REVISEDMOTION IN LIMINE N0.1FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DEBTOR'STHREE MOTIONS IN LIMINE INPREPARATION FOR START OF EFPARTRIAL. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND ENCLOSURERECEIVED FROM EFPAR'S COUNSELRE MISSING PAGE FROM MOTION INLIMINE FILED BY SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/9/2014 | TR | REVISE MOTION IN LIMINE REVALUATION TESTIMONY. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | BN | ASSIST WITH PREPARATION OF FILINGMOTIONS IN LIMINE IN EFPAR CLAIMOBJECTION PROCEEDING. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | TR | REVISE MOTIONS IN LIMINE. | 0.5 | $625 | $312.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/8/2014 | TR | (NO CHARGE) RESEARCH RE STATUTE OFFRAUDS. | 0.6 | $625 | $0.00 |
Exhibit 11
(A) Research/Analyze Issue of Admissibility of Deposition Transcripts
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE ADMISSIBILITY OFDEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE ADMISSIBILITY OFDEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE ADMISSIBILITY OFDEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPTS. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE UNDER WHATCIRCUMSTANCES DEPOSITIONTESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE. | 1.3 | $300 | $390.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE WHETHER REALESTATE DEVELOPER OR AGENT ISQUALIFIED TO GIVE EXPERT OPINIONON VALUATION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/4/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER REAL ESTATEDEVELOPER OR AGENT IS QUALIFIEDTO GIVE EXPERT OPINION ONVALUATION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER REAL ESTATEDEVELOPER OR AGENT IS QUALIFIEDTO GIVE EXPERT OPINION ONVALUATION. | 4.4 | $300 | $1,320.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | BN | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S TRIALEXHIBITS RE DRAFTING OBJECTIONS | 1.3 | $375 | $487.50 |
| TO SAME, AND SUPPLEMENT TOJOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER PERINSTRUCTION OF COURT AT PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE. | |||||
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH LEGAL AUTHORITIES REPREPARATION OF DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S TRIALEXHIBITS AND TRIALDECLARATIONS. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S TRIALBRIEFS. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRIALDECLARATION OF B. MICHAELS ANDEXHIBITS FILED BY EFPAR REDRAFTING EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO SAME. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRIALDECLARATION OF S. RAHBAR ANDEXHIBITS FILED BY EFPAR REDRAFTING EVIDENTIARYOBJECTION TO SAME. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRIALDECLARATION OF F. EFRAIM ANDEXHIBITS RE DRAFTING EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO SAME. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | TR | REVIEW EXHIBIT LIST (EFPAR). | 0.1 | $625 | $62.50 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DEPOSITONTRANSCRIPT OF F. EFRAIMAND EXHIBITS. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/4/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONS TOEFPAR'S TRIAL EXHIBITS. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REVISIONS TO DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S TRIALEXHIBITS PER INSTRUCTION OF T.RINGSTAD. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE / FINALIZE DEBTOR'SOBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'STRIAL EXHIBITS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOTRIAL DECLARATION OF B.MICHAELS AND EXHIBITS FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOTRIAL DECLARATON OF S. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| RAHBAR AND EXHIBITS FILED BYEFPAR. | |||||
| 12/5/2014 | TR | REVISE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS V.EFPAR. | 0.4 | $625 | $250.00 |
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | DRAFT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOTRIAL DECLARATION OF F. EFRAIMAND EXHIBITS FILED BY EFPAR. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | DRAFT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOTRIAL DECLARATION OF F.EFRAIM AND EXHIBITS FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | DRAFT REVISIONS TO OBJECTIONS TOTRIAL DECLARATIONS OFF. EFRAIM, B. MICHAELS AND S.RAHBAR, AND EXHIBITS, FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | TR | REVISE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TOEFPAR'S TRIALDECLARATIONS. | 0.7 | $625 | $437.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/5/2014 | CAM | PREPARE MULTIPLE ADDITIONALTRIAL EXHIBITS OF DEBTOR REPREPARATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITBINDER. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE TRANSCRIPTOF DEPOSITION OF S. RAHBAR INPREPARATION FOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/8/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE AND MARKPURSUANT TO LOCAL BANKRUPTCYRULE 7030 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTOF B.MICHAELS IN PREPARATION FORTRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/9/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DEPOSITONTRANSCRIPT OF F. EFRAIM ANDEXHIBITS, AND ANALYZE ISSUES REPREPARATION FORTRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 1.2 | $375 | $450.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW / REVISE NOTICES OF FILINGDEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FOREFPAR TRIAL AND DEPOSITIONTRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS TO BEFILED. | 0.9 | $375 | $337.50 |
| 12/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND PREPARE SAME FORTRIAL. | 1.8 | $375 | $675.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | TR | REVIEW TRIAL EXHIBITS. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | TR | REVIEW TRIAL DECLARATION ANDDEPOSITION OF F. EFRAIMAND BEGIN PREPARING CROSS-EXAMINATION. | 1.7 | $625 | $1,062.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | DRAFT SUMMARY RE EFPAR'SRESPONSES AND SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSES TO DEBTOR'S DISCOVERYREQUESTS RE ADMISSIONS MADE BYEFPAR CONCERNING CERTAINSUBJECTSRE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL. | 0.3 | $375 | $112.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | ASSIST WITH TRIAL PREPARATION. | 0.8 | $300 | $240.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE DOCUMENTS RE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EFPAR'SEXPERT, B. MICHAELS, AND REREDIRECT EXAMINATION OFDOWENT'S EXPERT, B. LOFGREN. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE ADDITIONAL TRIALEXHIBITS. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE EXHIBIT BINDERS,PLEADING BINDERS AND OTHERDOCUMENTS IN PREPARATION FORTRIAL ON DEBTOR'SMOTION FOR DISALLOWANCE OFEFPAR'S CLAIM. | 1 | $375 | $375.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S TRIALDECLARATIONS AND EFPAR'S TRIALEXHIBITS, AND PREPARE WORKINGCOPIES OF SAME, IN PREPARATIONFORSTART OF TRIAL. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WAIVER OF BREACH. | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| 12/8/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE NONMATERIALBREACHES UNDER CALIFORNIALAW. | 1 | $300 | $300.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND CASE LAW REIMPOSSIBILITY ANDMISTAKE ISSUES. | 2 | $625 | $1,250.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL ISSUES ANDSTRATEGY RE DEFENSES TO BREACHOF CONTRACT CLAIM. | 2.2 | $625 | $1,375.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY REPRESENTATION OFDEFENSES TO CLAIM. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DEBTOR'S WITNESSESSOUGHT TO BE CROSS- EXAMINED ATTRIAL AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FORSAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE ISSUES RECROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSESAT TRIAL AND PROPOSEDSCHEDULE FOR SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TOEFPAR'S COUNSEL RE VARIOUSSCHEDULING ISSUES RE CONDUCT OFEFPAR TRIAL AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES ATSAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DEBTOR'S WITNESSESTHAT EFPAR WISHES TOCROSS-EXAMINE AND SCHEDULINGSAME FOR TRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE TRIAL WITNESSSCHEDULE. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE DEBTOR PROVIDINGADDITIONAL COPIES OF TRIALEXHIBITS TO SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO EFPAR'SCOUNSEL RE PROVIDING SAME WITHCOPIES OFCERTAIN TRIAL DOCUMENTS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE SAMETESTIFYING AT TRIAL AND TIMING OFSAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/11/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| LOFGRENRE ISSUES RE SAME TESTIFYING ATEFPAR TRIAL AND EXPECTEDSCHEDULE RE SAME. | |||||
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE ANDMULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO B.LOFGREN RE VALUATIONINFORMATION AND TESTIMONY SETFORTH IN EFPAR'S TRIAL BRIEF ANDDECLARATION OF F. EFRAIM REHAVING B. LOFGREN PROVIDEANALYSIS OF SAME INPREPARATION FOR TRIAL. | 0.4 | $375 | $150.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGRENRE ARRANGING TRIAL PREPARATIONCONFERENCE CALL; DRAFT REPLY TOSAME RE SAME. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN RE TRIALPREPARATION ISSUES. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE FROM B.LOFGRENRE EFPAR TRIAL AND ANTICIPATEDSCHEDULE FOR SAME TO TESTIFY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANDDOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM B.LOFGREN RE DOLLAR TREE SALESCOMPS. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND BRANDONMICHAELS MULTI-TENANT SALESCOMPARABLE DATA RECEIVED FROMB. LOFGREN. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN AND T. RINGSTAD INPREPARATION FOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 0.5 | $375 | $187.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO B.LOFGREN RE APPEARING ANDTESTIFYING AT TRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B.LOFGREN RE PREPARATION FOREFPAR TRIAL, AND RE SALES DATARELIED ON BY EFPAR'S EXPERT ANDRE SALES TRANSACTIONS HANDLEDBY SAMEEFPAR'S EXPERT. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/18/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE SAME | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| TESTIFYING AT EFPAR TRIAL. | |||||
| 12/22/2014 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH B.LOFGREN RE ISSUES RE VALUATIONTRIAL TESTIMONY, COURT'S RULINGSRE SAME AND OUTCOMEOF TRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/23/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE AND INVOICERECEIVED FROM EXPERT WITNESS B.LOFGREN. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/9/2014 | TR | ANALYZE STRATEGY RE TRIALTESTIMONY. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES REDEBTOR'S AND EFPAR'SWITNESSES SOUGHT TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED AT TRIAL, AND PROPOSEDSCHEDULE FOR SAME. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/10/2014 | TR | ANALYZE ISSUES AND STRATEGY REEVIDENCE AND TESTIMONYFOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 2.2 | $625 | $1,375.00 |
| 12/11/2014 | BN | ANALYZE TRIAL STRATEGIES ANDPOSSIBLE MOTION FORJUDGMENT ON PARTIAL FINDINGS. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | BN | ANALYZE EFPAR TRIAL ISSUES. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE STATUTORYAUTHORITY RE ISSUES INVOLVED INTRIAL WITH EFPAR. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZEINTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTSFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSPROPOUNDED BY DEBTOR TO EFPAR,AND EFPAR'S RESPONSES ANDSUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TOSAME RE ADMISSIONS MADE BYEFPAR REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'SOPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTIONFOR DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OFSAME AND ATIACHMENTS, ANDEFPAR'S TRIAL DECLARATIONS ANDATIACHMENTS, IN PREPARATION FORTRIAL. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 12/16/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL EVIDENCE ANDPREPARE FOR TRIAL. | 6 | $625 | $3,750.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | BN | RESEARCH RE WHETHER ANSWERS | 0.5 | $300 | $150.00 |
| TO INTERROGATORIES AREADMISSIBLE. | |||||
| 12/17/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL DECLARATIONS ANDEXHIBITS AND PREPAREFOR TRIAL. | 10.5 | $625 | $6,562.50 |
| 12/18/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES ARISING AT FIRSTDAY OF TRIAL ON EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| 12/18/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSIN PREPARATION FOR SECOND DAYOF EFPAR TRIAL, AND RE PROVIDINGINFORMATION TO T. RINGSTAD REPRESENTATION OF CLOSINGTRIAL ARGUMENT BY SAME. | 0.8 | $375 | $300.00 |
| 12/19/2014 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES ARISING AFTERSECOND DAY OF TRIAL ONEFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M.ORH IN PREPARATION FOREFPAR TRIAL. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/23/2014 | CAM | PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE TO M.ORH RE ISSUES RE EMPLOYMENTAND PAYMENT OF EXPERTAPPRAISER B.LOFGREN / PEREGRINE REALTY. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 1/15/2015 | CA, | EXCHANGE MULTIPLE E-MAILS WITHM. ORH RE ISSUES RECLOSING ARGUMENTS IN EFPARTRIAL. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 1/21/2015 | CAM | EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH REEFPAR TRIAL CLOSINGARGUMENTS. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/12/2014 | TR | ANALYZE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONSFILED BY EFPAR. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 12/15/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE AMENDEDTRIAL EXHIBIT LIST FILED BYEFPAR. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE SUPPLEMENTTO JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER RESTIPULATION TO FOUNDATION REDEBTOR'S TRIAL EXHIBITS FILED BY | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| EFPAR. | |||||
| 12/18/2014 | BN | REVIEW EFPAR'S SUPPLEMENT TOTHE JOINT PRETRIALSTIPULATION AND ORDER. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.RIEMER RE CONTRACT ISSUES REEFPAR DISPUTE. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/17/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.RIEMER RE EFPAR TRIAL, AND RE NONEED FOR SAME TO APPEAR TOTESTIFY. | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| 12/26/2014 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZECORRESPONDENCE ANO INVOICERECEIVED FROM EXPERT R. RIEMER. | 0.1 | $375 | $37.50 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/8/2014 | TR | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHROGER HSU RE EFPAR TRIAL ANDDOWENT DEFENSES. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/9/2014 | TR | ANALYZE EFPAR TRIAL RECORDINGFOR PREPARATION FORCLOSING ARGUMENT. | 1.1 | $625 | $687.50 |
| 12/18/2014 | CAM | DRAFT DOCUMENT RE EFPAR'SADMISSIONS IN RESPONSES ANDSUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TODISCOVERY RE PREPARATION FORSECOND DAY OF TRIAL ANOPROVIDING INFORMATION TOT. RINGSTAD RE PREPARATION OFCLOSING ARGUMENT. | 0.6 | $375 | $225.00 |
| 12/18/2014 | TR | ANALYZE TRIAL EVIDENCE ANDPREPARE FOR CLOSINGARGUMENT. | 2.5 | $625 | $1,562.50 |
| 1/12/2015 | TR | PREPARE FOR CLOSING ARGUMENTFOR EFPAR TRIAL. | 2.5 | $625 | $1,562.50 |
| 1/16/2015 | TR | ANALYZE EVIDENCE AND PREPAREDAMAGES CHART ANALYZINGEVIDENCE FOR CLOSING ARGUMENT. | 1.8 | $625 | $1,125.00 |
| 1/19/2015 | TR | PREPARE FOR EFPAR TRIAL CLOSINGARGUMENT. | 4.5 | $625 | $2,812.50 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | REVIEW CLOSING ARGUMENTMATERIALS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHCOURT CLERK RE POWER POINTPRESENTATION. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITHCOURT IT RE POWER POINTPRESENTATION. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE CLOSINGARGUMENTS. | 0.2 | $300 | $60.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | ANALYZE ISSUES RE POWER POINTPRESENTATION FOR CLOSINGARGUMENT RE EFPAR CLAIMOBJECTION. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | BN | ASSIST WITH PREPARATION FORCLOSING ARGUMENTS. | 0.9 | $300 | $270.00 |
| 1/20/2015 | TR | PREPARE FOR EFPAR TRIAL CLOSINGARGUMENT. | 2.5 | $625 | $1,562.50 |
| 1/21/2015 | CAM | REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAND LEGAL AUTHORITIES REOBTAINING INFORMATION FORCLOSING ARGUMENTS INEFPAR TRIAL. | 1.4 | $375 | $525.00 |
| 1/21/2015 | TR | PREPARE FOR CLOSING ARGUMENT. | 0.6 | $625 | $375.00 |
| 1/21/2015 | TR | REVISE POWERPOINTPRESENTATIONS FOR CLOSINGARGUMENT. | 0.8 | $625 | $500.00 |
| 1/21/2015 | BN | ASSIST WITH PREPARATION FORCLOSING ARGUMENTS RE EFPARCLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.3 | $300 | $90.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/18/2014 | TR | ATTEND TRIAL ON EFPAR OBJECTION. | 10.5 | $625 | $6,562.50 |
| 12/19/2014 | TR | ATTEND SECOND DAY OF EFPARTRIAL. | 8.8 | $625 | $5,500.00 |
| 1/21/2015 | TR | ATTEND CLOSING ARGUMENT INEFPAR TRIAL. | 5.8 | $625 | $3,625.00 |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/18/2014 | BN | REVIEW TENTATIVE RULING ONEFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. | 0.1 | $300 | $30.00 |
| 12/19/2014 | CAM | TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R.HSU RE EVENTS AND STATUS | 0.2 | $375 | $75.00 |
| OF TRIAL WITH EFPAR. |
| Date | Atty | Description | Time | Hourly Rate | Total Fees |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2014 | CAM | RESEARCH RE LEGAL ISSUES REPREPARATION FOR TRIAL WITHEFPAR AND PREPARATION OF TRIALBRIEF. | 0.7 | $375 | $262.50 |
Exhibit 12
(A) Analysis of Strategy and Issues re: Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 1/5/2015 TR ANALYZE STRATEGY RE PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.4 $625 $250.00 1/6/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.5 $300 $150.00 1/6/2015 TR WORK ON STRATEGY RE POPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR EFPAR TRIAL. 0.3 $625 $187.50 1/13/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.7 $300 $210.00 1/22/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE FINALIZATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE TRIAL OF DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR. 0.3 $375 $112.50 2/11/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE DAMAGES ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.1 $300 $30.00 2/17/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES RE FINALIZING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.2 $375 $75.00 2/24/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR CLAIM. 0.3 $300 $90.00 2/25/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE 0.1 $300 $30.00 209 EFPAR OBJECTION. 2/25/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS RE DRAFTING / REVISING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.3 $375 $112.50 2/26/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.2 $300 $60.00 2/26/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES RE PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.5 $375 $187.50 2/27/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS RE REVISING DEBTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.4 $375 $150.00 (B) Analysis of Audio Recording of Trial Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 1/9/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE RECORDING OF TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF CLOSING STATEMENT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE SAME. 1.8 $375 $675.00 1/17/2015 CAM PREPARE NOTES AND TIME LOG OF AUDIO RECORDING OF EFPAR TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS. 1.8 $375 $675.00 1/17/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE AUDIO RECORDING OF EFPAR TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS. 2.4 $375 $900.00 1/18/2015 CAM DRAFT NOTES AND PREPARE TIME LOG RE AUDIO RECORDING OF EFPAR TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS. 3.8 $375 $1,425.00 1/18/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE AUDIO 5.9 $375 $2,212.50 210 RECORDING OF EFPAR TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS. 2/24/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE AUDIO RECORDINGS OF TRIAL EFPAR TRIAL RE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 2.4 $375 $900.00 (C) Draft/Revise Proposed Findings of Fact Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 1/12/2015 BN DRAFT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.3 $300 $90.00 1/13/2015 BN DRAFT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 1.5 $300 $450.00 1/14/2015 BN DRAFT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.8 $300 $240.00 1/16/2015 BN DRAFT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. 2.2 $300 $660.00 1/16/2015 BN REVISE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 0.3 $300 $90.00 1/17/2015 BN REVISE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 2 $300 $600.00 2/12/2015 BN DRAFT DAMAGES SECTION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 1.1 $300 $330.00 2/23/2015 BN DRAFT DAMAGES PORTION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 1 $300 $300.00 2/24/2015 CAM DRAFT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL; REVIEW . 1.9 $375 $712.50 2/25/2015 CAM DRAFT / REVISE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.7 $375 $262.50 2/25/2015 TR REVIEW AND REVISE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. 3.4 $625 $2,125.00 2/26/2015 BN REVISE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EFPAR OBJECTION. 2.7 $300 $810.00 2/26/2015 TR REVISE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR 1.8 $625 $1,125.00 211 CLAIM. 2/27/2015 CAM REVIEW / REVISE DEBTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 1.4 $375 $525.00 2/27/2015 TR FINALIZE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. 0.4 $625 $250.00 (D) Review/Analyze Efpar's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 3/2/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 0.3 $300 $90.00 3/2/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OBJECTION THERETO. 0.5 $300 $150.00 3/2/2015 TR ANALYZE EFPAR'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 2.2 $625 $1,375.00 3/3/2015 BN REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; ANALYZE ISSUES RELATED THERETO. 0.1 $300 $30.00 3/3/2015 TR ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPERTY FINDINGS OF FACT. 0.6 $625 $375.00 3/4/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO SAME. 1.3 $375 $487.50 3/5/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.5 $300 $150.00 3/9/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.5 $300 $150.00 3/10/2015 BN ANALYZE CASES CITED BY EFPAR IN ITS PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; RESEARCH CASES RELATED THERETO. 4.4 $300 $1,320.00 3/10/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.4 $300 $120.00 3/10/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.4 $300 $120.00 3/11/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.2 $300 $60.00 3/11/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 0.3 $300 $90.00 212 CONCLUSIONS. 3/11/2015 BN ANALYZE CASES CITED BY EFPAR IN ITS PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; RESEARCH CASES RELATED THERETO. 2.9 $300 $870.00 3/12/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.3 $300 $90.00 3/13/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.5 $300 $150.00 (E) Draft Objection to Efpar's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 3/3/2015 BN DRAFT OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 1.4 $300 $420.00 3/5/2015 BN DRAFT OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.7 $300 $210.00 3/9/2015 BN DRAFT OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.5 $300 $150.00 3/10/2015 BN DRAFT OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 3.7 $300 $1,110.00 3/11/2015 BN REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 3.3 $300 $990.00 3/11/2015 BN DRAFT OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 1.2 $300 $360.00 3/12/2015 BN REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 2.5 $300 $750.00 3/12/2015 TR REVISE OBJECTIONS TO EFPART'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 1.5 $625 $937.50 3/13/2015 BN REVISE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 4.5 $300 $1,350.00 3/13/2015 CAM WORK ON REVISING / FINALIZING OBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 0.5 $375 $187.50 3/13/2015 TR PREPARE AND REVISE OBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 5.5 $625 $3,437.50 213 (F) Review/Analyze Efpar's Objection to Debtor's Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 3/16/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S OBJECTION TO THE DEBTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.4 $300 $120.00 3/16/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE EFPAR'S OBJECTION TO THE DEBTOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.3 $300 $90.00 3/16/2015 TR ANALYZE EFPAR'S OBJECTIONS TO DOWENT'S FINDINGS OF FACT. 1.5 $625 $937.50 (G) Correspondence (Drafting and Analyzing) and Conferring with R. Hsu Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 7/24/2015 CAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU RE STATUS RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. 0.1 $625 $62.50 8/11/2015 CAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU AND T. RINGSTAD RE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT, AND ISSUES RE SAME. 0.3 $375 $112.50 (H) Correspondence (Drafting and Analyzing) and Conferring with M. Orh Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 3/4/2015 CAM PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND ENCLOSURE TO M. ORH RE STATUS OF EFPAR LITIGATION AND RECENTLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE SAME, AND RE STATUS OF SETTLEMENT WITH J. KIM AND OBTAINING COURT APPROVAL OF SAME. 0.3 $375 $112.50 3/12/2015 CAM PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND MULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO M. ORH RE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITIED BY PARTIES, AND RE ISSUES RE OBJECTIONS TO SAME. 0.4 $375 $150.00 3/16/2015 CAM PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND MULTIPLE ENCLOSURES TO M. ORH RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONS TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND EFPAR'S REPLY TO DEBTOR'S PROPOSED 0.2 $375 $75.00 214 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 4/7/2015 CTR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. ORH RE STRATEGY RE PAYMENT OF CREDITOR CLAIMS. 0.2 $625 $125.00 4/17/2015 CAM EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH RE STATUS OF COURT ISSUING DECISION RE EFPAR LITIGATION. 0.2 $375 $75.00 4/29/2015 CAM EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH RE OUTCOME OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON EFPAR TRIAL, COURT'S ISSUANCE OF DECISION RE SAME, AND FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE. 0.1 $375 $37.50 5/26/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH RE OUTCOME OF STATUS CONFERENCES ON SBH REALTY AND EFPAR MATIERS. 0.1 $375 $37.50 6/30/2015 CAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. ORH RE ISSUES RE STATUS OF OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR AND DOWENT, AND ISSUES RE SAME. 0.2 $375 $75.00 7/8/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE MULTIPLE E- MAILS FROM M. ORH AND R. HSU RE ISSUES RE STATUS OF CLAIMS LITIGATION WITH EFPAR AND SBH REALTY, AND SCHEDULED STATUS CONFERENCES RE SAME. 0.1 $375 $37.50 7/9/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE CORRESPONDENCE FROM M. ORH RE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE RULING ON EFPAR TRIAL AND IMPLICATIONS RE SAME. 0.1 $375 $37.50 7/27/2015 CAM EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH M. ORH RE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULINGS RE STATUS CONFERENCES ON DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF EFPAR AND SBH, AND RE STATUS OF COURT ISSUING DECISION ON EFPAR TRIAL. 0.2 $375 $75.00 8/11/2015 CAM SECOND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH R. HSU RE ISSUES RE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT. 0.2 $375 $75.00 8/11/2015 CAM PREPARE CORRESPONDENCE AND ENCLOSURE TO M. ORH AND R. HSU RE COURT'S DECISION RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR CLAIM. 0.1 $375 $37.50 8/11/2015 CAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH M. ORH AND T. RINGSTAD RE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE 0.3 $375 $112.50 215 DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT, AND ISSUES RE SAME. (I) Review/Analyze Court's Memorandum of Decision Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 1/20/2015 CAM EXCHANGE E-MAILS WITH DEBTOR'S APPRAISER. 0.1 $375 $37.50 2/4/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES RE ERRONEOUS INVOICE RECEIVED FROM DEBTOR'S APPRAISER AND RESOLVING SAME. 0.1 $375 $37.50 8/11/2015 BN REVIEW MEMORANDUM DECISION RE EFPAR CLAIM OBJECTION. 0.6 $300 $180.00 8/11/2015 CAM ANALYZE ISSUES AND DOCUMENTS RE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM AND POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF SAME. 0.7 $375 $262.50 8/11/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF EFPAR DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARE NOTES RE SAME. 1.8 $375 $675.00 (J) Review of Trial Testimony, Declarations and Other Related Documents Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 3/5/2015 BN REVIEW EFPAR'S TRIAL TESTIMONY FOR USE IN OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; ANALYZE ISSUES RELATED THERETO. 1.4 $300 $420.00 3/9/2015 BN REVIEW DOLLAR TREE LEASE; ANALYZE ISSUES RELATED THERETO. 0.6 $300 $180.00 3/9/2015 BN REVIEW DECLARATION OF B. LOFGREN RE DOLLAR TREE LEASE. 0.3 $300 $90.00 3/9/2015 BN REVIEW TRIAL TESTIMONY OF B. LOFGREN RE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 4 $300 $1,200.00 3/12/2015 BN REVIEW PLEADINGS FOR USE IN OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 0.2 $300 $60.00 (K) Research Regarding Damages Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 216 1/16/2015 BN RESEARCH RE EFPAR'S BURDEN OF PROOF RE DAMAGES. 0.5 $300 $150.00 1/20/2015 BN RESEARCH RE PROVIDING DAMAGES. 0.7 $300 $210.00 Miscellaneous Entries Date Atty Description Time Hourly Rate Total Fees 2/27/2015 CAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT'S LAW CLERK RE ISSUES RE LODGING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RE COURT'S PREFERRED MANNER OF CITATIONS TO EVIDENCE IN SAME. 0.2 $375 $75.00 2/27/2015 CAM RESEARCH RE LOCAL AND FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY RULES RE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.3 $375 $112.50 3/10/2015 BN RESEARCH RE WHETHER COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE LEGAL ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN PRE-TRIAL ORDER. 0.4 $300 $120.00 3/10/2015 TR ANALYZE CASE LAW FOR IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE. 1.5 $625 $937.50 3/16/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE EFPAR'S REPLY TO DOWENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 0.4 $375 $150.00 4/24/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE ISSUES RE UPCOMING STATUS CONFERENCE RE EFPAR TRIAL. 0.2 $375 $75.00 5/22/2015 CAM REVIEW AND ANALYZE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING RE TRIAL ON OBJECTION TO EFPAR'S CLAIM. 0.1 $375 $37.50 8/11/2015 BN ANALYZE ISSUES RE ATTORNEY'S FEES WHEN OBJECTIONS TO CLAIM GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 0.2 $300 $60.00