DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 11, 2019KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 180V3391 79 Santa Clara - Civil Electronically Filed Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) - Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) gifxtpeorrgacnzzréloaiaCA’ Matthew c. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) y _ ’ CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 0" 3/30/2021 2-41 PM 1435 K011 Circle, suite 104 Rewewed By: S- Vera San Jose, California 951 12-4610 case #1 8CV3391 79 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Envelope: 6140051 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant MAURICIO PINALES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-339179 (Unlimited Civil Case) Plaintiff, V- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MAURICIO FINALESa 6‘ al-a ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS BY Defendants. MAURICIO PINALES MAURICIO PINALES, Hearing Date: TBA Hearing Time: TBA Cross-Complainant, Hearing Dept; TBA Hearing Judge.: TBA V' Location: 191 North First Street San Jose, CAMIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation; and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. I, Fred W. Schwinn, declare under penalty 0f perjury, under the laws 0f the state 0f California, that the following statements are true: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts 0f the State 0f California and am a shareholder in the law firm Consumer Law Center, Inc., attorneys 0f record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, MAURICIO PINALES (hereinafter “PINALES”). DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 . Vera KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 2. I have personal knowledge 0f the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. I am a member in good standing of the bars 0f the following courts: Supreme Court 0f the United States Washington, DC 2003 Supreme Court 0f California Sacramento, California 2003 Supreme Court 0f Kansas Topeka, Kansas 1997 (Inactive) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Denver, Colorado 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit San Francisco, California 2003 U.S. District Court for the District 0f Kansas Topeka, Kansas 1997 (Inactive) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Jefferson City, Missouri 2001 (Inactive) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco, California 2003 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 0f California Sacramento, California 2003 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Los Angeles, California 2003 DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California San Diego, California 2009 EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE 4. I am a 1994 graduate magna cum laude 0f Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, and a 1997 graduate 0f Washbum University School 0f Law. In 1995, I passed the Uniform Certified Public Accountant’s examination and was granted a Certified Public Accountant certificate from the Kansas Board of Accountancy. I am a member of the State Bar 0f California, Santa Clara County Bar Association, National Association 0f Consumer Advocates, National Association 0f Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, California Bankruptcy Forum, and a former member of the Topeka Area Bankruptcy Council, 0f Which I am a past Treasurer. 5. From September 26, 1997, until December 21, 2003, I maintained a private law practice With an office located in Topeka, Kansas. In December of 2003, I relocated my law practice to California. My practice is limited exclusively t0 the representation of consumers, with particular emphasis 0n representing consumer under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Truth in Lending Act, Telephone Consumers Protection Act, Uniform Commercial Code, common law fraud, misrepresentation and deceit, usury, and other laws enacted t0 protect consumers. My firm, Consumer Law Center, Inc., undertakes representation in many consumer cases With the expectation 0f being paid a contingency amount from the proceeds 0f recovery, 0r being paid based 0n an award 0f fees pursuant t0 fee shifting statutes such as the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act and California Unruh Act. 6. I have given a number of lectures t0 consumers and professional groups 0n consumer law issues, including the Volunteer Legal Service Program 0f The Bar Association 0f San DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Francisco, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Pro Bono Project and Fair Housing Law Project in San Jose, California. 7. I was honored as “Attorney of the Year” in 2013 by Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. I was also honored as “Outstanding Volunteer Attorney” in 2011 and 2012 by the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the San Francisco County Bar Association. 8. I have been a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates since 1999 and have attended at least fifteen (15) national conferences exclusively 0n consumer law issues. 9. I have an “AV Preeminent” rating by Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Ratings system every year from 2012 through 2021. I also have a “Superb Rating” by Avvol from 2011 through 2021, With a perfect 10.0 rating each year. 10. I have been interviewed, and quoted, by the New York Times, San Jose Mercury News, California Lawyer magazine and The Pacific Northwest Inlander. I have assisted numerous consumers in both chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcies, and been involved in many consumer cases involving a range of consumer protection laws. I have handled several cases that have resulted in reported decisions favorable to consumers including: CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT o Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 6 Cal. 5th 844 (Cal. 2019) (CiV. Proc. Code § 98(a) requires affiant’s personal presence at location Within 150 miles of place 0f trial for a reasonable period within the 20 days prior t0 trial if personal service of trial subpoena would ordinarily be necessary t0 secure that affiant’s attendance at trial). APPELLATE COURTS - Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 762 F. App’x 431 (9th Cir. 2019) (vacating and remanding district court’s summary judgment order dismissing FDCPA class-action claims). o Timlick v. Nat’l Enter. Sys., Ina, 35 Cal. App. 5th 674 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2019) (debt collector cannot unilaterally “pick off’ the named plaintiff and avoid class action litigation). o Professional Collection Consultants v. Lujan, 23 Cal. App. 5th 685 (Cal. App. lst Dist. 2018) (Delaware 3-year statute of limitations applies in California debt buyer’s collection cases). 1 See http ://WWW.aVV0.com/att0rneys/95 1 13-ca-frederick-schwinn-3 6 1 966.htm1 _ 4 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 860 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. June 22, 2017) (certifying question of state law to California Supreme Court). Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron, 8 Cal. App. 5th 958, (Cal. App. 6th Dist. Feb. 16, 2017) (Delaware’s 3 year statute of limitations applies in California debt buyer’s collection cases). Tye v. Salomon (In re Salomon), 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23221 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016) (affirming denial of motion to extend time for filing appeal). Johnson v. CFS II, Ina, 628 Fed. Appx. 505 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of debt collector’s motion for leave t0 file motion for reconsideration, affirming attorney fee award to consumer). Lauron v. Prof’l Collection Consultants, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8983 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. Dec. 18, 2014) (denying debt collectors’ interlocutory appeal). Lujan v. Prof’l Collection Consultants, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8555 (Cal. App. lst Dist. NOV. 26, 2014) (denying debt collectors’ interlocutory appeal). Tye v. Salomon (In re Salomon), 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 897 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (affirming denial 0f motion t0 extend time for filing appeal). Target National Bank v. Rocha, 216 Cal App. 4th Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013) (holding that Code 0f Civil Procedure § 98 declarants must be physically present within 150 miles 0f the place of trial). Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that an initial debt collection letter violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) only if it explicitly requires disputes in writing). Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp, 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) (collection agency owner qualified as a debt collector, and his personal acts were sufficient to render him liable for Violations of the FDCPA). Fontaine v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. App. 4th 830 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2009) (Peremptory writ 0f mandate was issued. Venue proper in Santa Clara County pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(b)). Resurgence Financial, LLC v. Chambers, 173 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2009) (Superior Court erred in failing to apply Delaware’s three year statute of limitations required by contract choice-of-law clause). Giovannoni v. Bidna & Keys, 255 Fed. Apr. 124, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26242 (9th Cir. October 17, 2007) (District Court erred in failing t0 award non-taxable costs under FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3)). Ramirez v. Household Fin. Corp. III (In re Ramirez), 329 B.R. 727 (D. Kan. 2005) (affirming Bankruptcy Court’s rescission 0f mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act). Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, Inc. v. Black, 96 P.3d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003) (spot delivery agreements d0 not Violate Kansas law). Green v. Kan. City Power & Light C0. (In re Green), 281 B.R. 699 (D. Kan. 2002) (remanding Bankruptcy Court decision granting summary judgment for determination 0f “aggrieved consumer” status under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act). U.S. DISTRICT COURTS (previous ten years only) Credit Consulting Servs. v. Scott, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29660 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2019) (granting motion to remand FDCPA class action cross-complaint). -5- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Izett v. Crown Asset Mgmt, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211459 (ND. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). Timlick v. Nat’l Enter. Sys., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130921 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017) (granting motion t0 remand RFDCPA class action case). Carlson v. Gatestone & C0. Int’l, Ina, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93348 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2017) (granting motion t0 remand RFDCPA class action case). Garcia v. Stanley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32550 (ND. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173058 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Garcia v. Creditors Specially Serv., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159686 (ND. Cal. NOV. 16, 2016) (granting summary judgment in a FDCPA case). Ciganek v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74905 (ND. Cal. June 7, 2016) (construing Cal. Code 0f Civil Procedure § 98). Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36446 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in a FDCPA class action case). Neves v. Benchmark Recovery, Ina, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152829 (N.D. Cal. NOV. 11, 2015) (granting motion for default judgment in FDCPA case). Camacho v. Jeflerson Capital Sys., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127004 (ND. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) (granting summary judgment in FDCPA case). Martel] v. Baker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83528 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2015) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73313 (ND. Cal. June 4, 2015) (granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in a FDCPA class action case). Picard v. ABC Legal Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70713 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2015) (denying process server’s motion for summary judgment in FDCPA case). Marnam' v. Mezzetti Fin. Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24153 (ND. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). Bentkowsky v. Benchmark Recovery, Ina, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12694 (ND. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015) (granting motion t0 alter 0r amend judgment t0 specify that collection agency principal was jointly and severally liable). Gold v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142758 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014) (granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in a FDCPA class action case). Camacho v. Jeflerson Capital Sys., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141216 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). Krulee v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141 181 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115601 (ND. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA class action case). Davis v. Midland Funding, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109309 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (denying debt buyers motion for summary judgment in FDCPA case). Skinner v. Mt. Lion Acquisitions, Ina, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106815 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2014) (denying debt buyers motion t0 dismiss in FDCPA case). Long v. Nationwide Legal File & Serve, Ina, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101670 (ND. Cal. July 23, 2014) (awarding attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Bentkowsky v. Benchmark Recovery, Ina, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110259 (N.D. Cal. July 10, -6- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 2014) (compelling document production in FDCPA case). Gold v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93461 (ND. Cal. July 9, 2014) (compelling Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics in FDCPA class action case). Gold v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93448 (ND. Cal. July 9, 2014) (compelling document production in FDCPA class action case). Neves v. Kraft, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70670 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2014) (granting motion for default judgment in FDCPA case). Younger v. Michael & Assocs., P.C., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60916 (ND. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Tsoi v. Patenaude & Felix, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52197 (ND. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Brown v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47020 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). De Amara] v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45730 (ND. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Claflin v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22447 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (denying motion t0 dismiss 0r stay action based on principles of abatement). Gold v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27605 (ND. Cal. Feb. 20, 2014) (compelling discovery in class action case). De Amara! v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18568 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014) (granting summary judgment in FDCPA case). Johnson v. CFS II, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180793 (ND. Cal. Dec. 27, 2013) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs). Johnson v. CFS II, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178542 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) (denying Defendant’s motion t0 reconsider). Madison v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153168 (ND. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (striking affirmative defenses and awarding service costs and attorney fees pursuant t0 Fed. R. CiV. P. 4(d)(2)). Rivera v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136002 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2013) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs). Long v. Nationwide Legal File & Serve, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132971 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) (granting in part, motion for summary judgment). Ansari v. Elec. Document Processing Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124798 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) (granting in part, motion for summary judgment). Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116598 (ND. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (denying motion t0 dismiss and motion t0 strike FDCPA case). Chan v. Booska, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109005 (ND. Cal. July 15, 2013) (awarding attorney fees in FDCPA case). Gandeza v. Brachfeld Law Group, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91534 (ND. Cal. June 27, 2013) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Johnson v. CFS, II, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61017 (ND. Cal. Apr. 28, 2013) (granting summary judgment and awarding treble damages under Cal. Civil Code § 3345). Ansari v. Elec. Document Processing, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24776 (ND. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses without leave to amend). De Amara] v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24085 (ND. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (denying motion t0 dismiss and motion to transfer). -7- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO De Amara] v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172779 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) (denying motion t0 dismiss and special motion t0 strike). Ansari v. Elec. Document Processing, Ina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128622 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2012) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Gonzalez v. Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112195 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Ear v. Empire Collection Auths., Ina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110906 (ND. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) (granting in part motion to strike affirmative defenses). Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Ina, 877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (ND. Cal. 2012) (granting in part and denying in part motion t0 dismiss FDCPA case). Perez v. Gordon & Wong Law Group, P.C., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41080 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (denying motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Gonzalez v. Heritage Pac. Fin, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27315 (ED. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss for improper venue). Dion v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51 16 (ND. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Ina, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 201 1) (denying motion t0 dismiss “sewer service” FDCPA case). Scott v. Fed. Bond & Collection Serv., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93043 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 201 1) (awarding attorney fees in FDCPA case). U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS Tye v. Salomon (In re Salomon), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (granting discharge in non-discharageability case). Cushing v. Household Fin. Corp. III (In re Cashing), 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 99 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jan. 21, 2005) (Truth in Lending Act rescission denied). Merriman v. Beneficial Mortg. (In re Merriman), 329 B.R. 710 (D. Kan. 2005) (finding Violations 0f the Truth in Lending Act and granting rescission 0fhome mortgage loan). Quenzer v. Advanta Mortg. Corp. USA (In re Quenzer), 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2627 (Bankr. D. Kan. Dec. 22, 2005) (denying lender’s request for post-rescission interest under Truth in Lending Act). Sinclair v. Wash. Mut. Home Loans, Inc. (In re Sinclair), 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1415 (Bankr. D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2004) (denying lender leave to assert affirmative defense in Truth in Lending Act case). Finch v. Household Fin. Corp. III (In re Finch), 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 2049 (Bankr. D. Kan. NOV. 7, 2003) (finding Violations of the Truth in Lending Act and granting rescission of home mortgage loan). Bilal v. Household Finance Corporation III (In re Bilal), 296 B.R. 828 (D. Kan. 2003) (holding that the inclusion of language in a Chapter 13 Plan Which rescinds a home mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act is binding on a mortgage creditor Who fails t0 object before confirmation). Nave v. Commun. Am. Credit Union (In re Nave), 303 B.R. 223 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2003) (credit life insurance premiums paid monthly are not included in “amount financed” under the Truth in Lending Act). DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO - Quenzer v. Advanta Mortg. Corp. United States, 288 B.R. 884 (D. Kan. 2003) (equitable principles apply in Truth in Lending Act rescission). o Ramirez v. Household Finance Corporation III (In re Ramirez), 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1364 (D. Kan. 2003) (finding Violations of the Truth in Lending Act and granting rescission 0f home mortgage loan). o In re Green, 287 B.R. 827 (D. Kan. 2002) (holding that the inclusion 0f language in a Chapter 13 Plan Which attempts t0 discharge student loans should be reviewed 0n a case-by-case basis). o In re Crosby, 261 B.R. 470 (D. Kan. 2001) (holding that the issuance of a Form 1099-C by a creditor forgives the debt). - Quenzer v. Advanta Mortg. Corp. (In re Quenzer), 274 B.R. 899 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2001) (finding Violations of the Truth in Lending Act and granting rescission 0fhome mortgage loan). o Quenzer v. Advanta Mortg. Corp. (In re Quenzer), 266 B.R. 760 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2001) (voiding lien after Truth in Lending Act rescission). 11. Ihave been approved and appointed as adequate class counsel in several consumer class action cases including: Case Name Court Case N0. / Date Judge Timlick v. NCB Management Services, Lake County CIV-4 1 69 1 9 Lunas Inc. (February 2, 2021) Chambers v. Merchants & Medical Credit Santa Clara County 18-CV-324210 Kulkarni Corporation, Inc. (November 23, 2020) Brady v. Patenaude & Felix, APC Santa Clara County 18-CV-338737 Lucas (August 25, 2020) Credit Consulting Services, Inc. v. Scott San Benito County CL-18-00541 Rodriguez (January 9, 2020) Pajarit v. Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. San Mateo County 18-CIV-05015 Weiner (November 18, 2019) Scribner v. Simm Assam, Ina, et al. Santa Clara County 17-CV-3 12803 Kuhnle (October 7, 2019) Guzman v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Santa Clara County 18-CV-322871 Walsh et al. (August 16, 2019) Homer v. Crown Asset Management, LLC Santa Clara County 17-CV-3 15221 Kuhnle (March 8, 2019) Carlson v. Gatestone & C0. International, Santa Clara County 17-CV-306698 Kuhnle Ina, et al. (November 30, 2018) Lock v. Global Credit & Collection Santa Clara County 2015-1-CV-283297 Kuhnle Corporation, el‘ al. (November 13, 2018) Corso v. ML. Zager, P.C., et al. Santa Clara County 16-CV-298607 Kirwan (June 29, 2018) _ 9 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Atlantic Credit & Finance Special Santa Cruz County CIS-CV-182328 Burdick Finance Unit III, LLC v. Nevarez, et al. (June 25, 2018) Davis v. Cavalry SPVI, LLC Santa Clara County 2016-1-CV-301730 Kuhnle (April 2, 2018) Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC Northern District 0f 5:15-CV-00188-LHK Koh California (January 13, 2017) Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC Northern District of 5:14-CV-00735-LHK Koh California (June 7, 2016) Gold v. Midland Credit Management, Inc Northern District 0f 5:13-CV-02019-BLF Freeman California (October 7, 2014) Luxford v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP Northern District of 5:09-CV-02809-JF Fogel California (April 22, 201 1) Arroyo v. Professional Recovery Services, Eastern District 0f 1:09-CV-00750-LJO O’Neil Inc. California (November 13, 2009) Silva v. Patenaude & Felix, APC Northern District of 5:08-CV-O3019-JW Ware California (August 31, 2009) Carrizosa v. Stassinos Northern District 0f 5:05-CV-02280-RMW Whyte California (March 30, 2009) TIME AND HOURLY RATE 12. For my services as an attorney in this case, Consumer Law Center, Inc., seeks my 2020 hourly rate 0f $650.00. This hourly rate is reasonable, and comparable t0 the rates being charged by attorneys of similar experience and expertise in the San Francisco Bay Area’s federal and state courts. Courts in Northern California have awarded fees at my 2020 hourly rate 0f $650.00 in a number 0f cases, including: Case Name Court Case N0. / Date Judge Pajariz‘ v. Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. San Mateo County 18-CIV-05015 Weiner (December 17, 2020) Scribner v. Simm Assam, Ina, et al. Santa Clara County 17CV3 12803 Lucas (December 2, 2020) Midland Funding, LLC v. Dong San Mateo County 18-CIV-06 1 81 Fineman (June 12, 2020) Lock v. Global Credit & Collection Santa Clara County 2015-1-CV-283297 Kuhnle Corporation (July 3 1 , 20 1 9) _ 10 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 18-CV-339179 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Homer v. Crown Asset Management, LLC Santa Clara County 17-CV-315221 (July 31, 2019) Kuhnle 13. On January 1, 2019, I raised my hourly rate to $650.00, representing the first increase in my hourly rate since July 1, 2017. Courts in Northern California have awarded my previous hourly rate of $600.00 in a number 0f cases, including: (July 16, 2018) Case Name Court Case N0. / Date Judge Carlson v. Gatestone & C0. International, Santa Clara County 17-CV-306698 Kuhnle Inc. (March 29, 2019) Newsom v. Cavalry SPVI, LLC Santa Clara County 16-CV-299973 Kuhnle (March 1, 2019) Corso v. ML. Zager, P.C., er al. Santa Clara County 16-CV-298607 Kuhnle (January 31, 2019) Atlantic Credit & Finance Special Santa Cruz County CIS-CV-182328 Burdick Finance Unit III, LLC v. Nevarez (December 28, 2018) Prof’l Collection Consultants v. Lujan San Francisco CGC-S 17685 Ulmer County (October 17, 2018) Davis v. Cavalry SPVI, LLC Santa Clara County 2016-1-CV-301730 Kuhnle (August 20, 2018) Mechanics Bank, Inc. v. Porter San Mateo County 17-CIV-05621 Greenberg 14. My firm’s work in connection with this case is shown 0n the schedule attached hereto, marked Exhibit “A.” My staff and I prepared our time records contemporaneously With my performance 0f the work, using the MyCase online software for law offices. The time records d0 not duplicate work performed in any other file. 15. I have reviewed the time records t0 ensure that all billings were accurate and reasonable. actually expended in this action. If anything, these time records conservatively understate the amount of time that was Some unrecorded time was expended analyzing the issues t0 be resolved, through e.g., discussions With colleagues knowledgeable about debt collection practices, and reviewing the file t0 figure out how best to persuade Cross-Defendants to amicably resolve the matter. DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN -11- Case No. 18-CV-339 1 79 \OOOQOUI-RUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-‘r-tp-Ar-‘r-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-PUJNF-‘O 16. Consumer Law Center, Inc., seeks compensation for 23.2 hours of the total time that I spent performing legal services for PINALES in this case. LSTS 17. In the San Francisco Bay Area it is customary for lawyers to bill their clients separately, in addition t0 their regular hourly rate, for expert witness fees, court reporter fees, long distance telephone calls, on-line research charges, copying and facsimile costs, postage and delivery charges, and travel costs, including mileage, tolls and parking. Consumer Law Center, Inc., advanced and incurred $686.11 in costs and expenses in this matter. See Exhibit “A,” attached hereto. 18. The requested attorney’s fees and costs were reasonable and necessary to the fl Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) litigation in this matter. Executed at San Jose, California 0n March 30, 2021. _ 12 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 18-CV-339179 Consumer Law Center,lnc. n m rL W n r In I 1435 KollCircIe,Suite104 CO 3U e a Ge tea C San Jose, CA 951 12-461 O (408) 294-61 00 Mauricio Pinales BaIance $44,136.11 1595 Sanborn Avenue Invoice # 001 55 San Jose: CA 951 10 Invoice Date March 30, 2021 Payment Terms Due on Receipt Due Date March 30, 2021 Time Entries Date EE Activity Description Rate Hours Line Total Initial Meeting with Client - Re: Explained claims and defenses. Client has a Home Depot credit card 10 years ago that was used for one project and the account was paid off and closed. Client has lived in 02/08/2019 FWS Meeting the same house for 13 years and it is on the same $650.00 1.5 $975.00 street as the account statement address. Possibility an account takeover ID theft case. Credit report request mailed today. Reviewed and signed engagement agreement. Drafting Defendant Mauricio Pinales' Answer to Complaint 02/09/2019 FWS Documents of Midland Funding, LLC $650.00 0.3 $195.00 Drafting . 02/09/201 9 FWS Cross-Complalnt for Damages $650.00 3.5 $2,275.00 Documents Demand for Copy of Items of Account, Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Special Drafting Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production 02/09/2019 FWS Documents of Documents and Electronically Stored Information $65000 3'0 $1 ’950'00 (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded to Midland Funding, LLC 02/21/2019 Fws Receive & Review P'aintifT'S ReSponse t° Defendant's Demand for Bi” $650.00 0.1 $65.00 of Partlculars Drafting Letter to Client - Re: Copies of filed Answer & Cross-Complaint and discovery requests $650.00 0.1 $65.00 served on Midland Funding, LLC Drafting 02/21/201 9 FWS Correspondence Receive & Review email from One Legal - Re: 02/25/2019 FWS Receive & Review Midland Credit Management, |nc., was served on $650.00 0.1 $65.00 February 22, 2019. Receive & Review email from Raagini Shah @ Reed Smith, LLP - Re: She will be substituting in as counsel for Midland Funding in this case. She 03/07/2019 FWS Receive & Review requests an extension of time to April 2, 2019, for $650.00 0.1 $65.00 Midland Funding's discovery responses and responsive pleading. She also requests the date of service for Midland Credit Management, Inc. 03/07/201 9 FWS Drafting Correspondence Drafting email to Raagini Shah @ Reed Smith, LLP - Re: Granting an extension of time to April 2, 2019, for Midland Funding's discovery responses and responsive pleading. Proof of Service of Summons as to Cross-Defendant, Midland Credit Management, |nc., is provided. $650.00 0.1 $65.00 03/07/201 9 FWS Drafting Documents Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address $650.00 0.1 $65.00 03/1 5/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Receive & Review email from Jessica Lohr @ Troutman Sanders, LLP - Re: We were also recently retained by Midland in the above- referenced Pinales matter. Wi|| you please agree to a 15-day extension for us to file our Answer to the cross-complaint pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 3.1 10(d)? By our calculation, that would make the Answer due April 9, 2019. $650.00 0.1 $65.00 03/1 5/201 9 FWS Drafting Correspondence Drafting email to Jessica Lohr @ Troutman Sanders, LLP - Re: Looks like Midland is playing musical lawyers in this case. | have already granted an extension of time in this case to Reed Smith, LLP. All discovery responses, document production, and responsive pleadings for all panies are due on April 2, 2019. See attached. There will be no more extensions of time granted until one or the other of you actually enters an appearance in the case. $650.00 0.2 $130.00 03/25/201 9 FWS Drafting Documents Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded to Midland Credit Management, Inc. $650.00 2.0 $1 ,300.00 03/25/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Substitution of Attorney - Re: Raagini Shah @ Reed Smith, LLP, iis in and Jonathan Kom @ Midland Funding, LLC, is out $650.00 0.1 $65.00 04/02/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Midland Funding LLC's Response to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Midland Funding LLC's Response to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Midland Funding LLC's Response to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One); Midland Funding LLC's Response to Request for Admissions (Set One) $650.00 1.0 $650.00 04/02/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Midland Funding LLC's and Midland Credit Management, |nc.'s Answer to Mauricio Pinales' Cross-Complaint (General denial and 3 unsupponed affirmative defenses) $650.00 0.1 $65.00 04/03/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Plaintiff's Document Production (Midland 0001 to Midland 0086) $650.00 1.2 $780.00 04/03/201 9 FWS Drafting Documents Stipulated Protective Order $650.00 0.3 $195.00 04/03/201 9 FWS Drafting Correspondence Drafting email to Raagini Shah - Re: We are in receipt of Midland Funding, LLC's discovery responses in the above referenced action. | note that your client has requested a protective order in some of its responses. In that regard, | attach a Stipulated Protective Order for use in this case. The text of this document is taken verbatim from the Santa Clara County model protective order. Please email me a signed copy of the attached document for filing with the Court. Please let me know if you cannot approve this document for any reason. $650.00 0.1 $65.00 05/02/201 9 FWS Receive & Review Midland Credit Management, |nc.'s Response to Form Interrogatories (Set One); Midland Credit Management, |nc.'s Response to Special Interrogatories (Set One); Midland Credit Management, |nc.'s Response to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One); Midland Credit Management, |nc.'s Response to Request for Admissions (Set One) $650.00 1.0 $650.00 05/03/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence to Raagini Shah - Re: Consolidating motion to compel deadlines to June 21, 2019. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 05/03/201 9 MCS Receive & Review Email from Raagini Shah - Re: requested extension of time granted. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 06/1 9/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence Letter to Raaghni Shah - Re: Meet and confer regarding Midland Funding, LLC's inadequate discovery responses and document production. $450.00 4.1 $1 ,845.00 06/20/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence Letter to Raaghni Shah - Re: Meet and confer regarding Midland Credit Managment's inadequate discovery responses and document production. $450.00 3.6 $1 ,620.00 06/20/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Ragghini Shah - Re: Confirming telephone conversation and extension f time to July 12 to file motion to compel and please see attached correspondence. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 07/03/201 9 RRR Telephone Call With Raagini Shah - She is requesting a one week extension of time to respond to our meet and confer letter and offering a mutual extension of time for our motion to compel. $550.00 0.1 $55.00 07/03/201 9 RRR Drafting Correspondence Draft email to Raagini Shah - Re: granting requested one week extension of time to respond to our meet and confer letter and accepting their mutual extension of time for our motion to compel. $550.00 0.1 $55.00 07/08/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence to Raagni Shah - Re: Clarifying discovery deadlines. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 07/08/201 9 MCS Receive & Review Email from Raagni Shah - Re: Requested extension of time to file Motion to Compel to and including July 26, 2019 is granted. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 07/1 0/201 9 MCS Receive & Review Email from Raagni Shah - Re: Containing couriesy copies of correspondence and requesting entrance of Stipulated Protective Order. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 07/1 0/201 9 MCS Receive & Review Letter from Raagni Shah - Re: Responsive meet and confer letter regarding Midland's discovery responses. Wi|| provide supplemental responses and documents once stipulated protective order is entered. $450.00 0.4 $180.00 07/1 0/201 9 MCS Receive & Review Letter from Raagni Shah - Re: Responsive meet and confer letter regarding MCM's discovery responses. Wi|| provide supplemental responses and documents once stipulated protective order is entered. $450.00 0.4 $180.00 07/1 1/2019 FWS Receive & Review Receive & Review email from Raagini Shah - Re: Signed Stipulated Protective Order for filing with the Coun $650.00 0.1 $65.00 07/25/201 9 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Tuan Uong - Re: Due to the fact we are still waiting for Coun to sign Stipulated Protective Order, please grant an extension of time to and including August 23, 2019 to file a motion to compel. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 07/26/201 9 MCS Telephone Call Voicemail left for Tuan Uong - Re: Following up on yesterday's email. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 With Tuan Uong - Re: He is not caught up on case 07/26/2019 MCS Telephone Call yet and Wm grant requested extension of time. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 07/26/2019 Mos Receive & Review Em?“ "Pm Tuan uong ' Re: RequeSted Memo“ $450.00 0.1 $45.00 of tlme Is granted. 09/13/2019 Mos Receive & Review Ema" Cha'“ W'”? Tuan uong ' Re: EXtens'O” °f $450.00 0.2 $90.00 dlscovery deadline. Email to Tuan Uong - Re: "Does your client intend on serving supplemental discovery responses and Dram“ documents now that the Stipulated Protective 10/16/2019 MCS g Order has been entered? We were under the $450.00 0.1 $45.00 Correspondence . . . . ImpreSSIon that addltlonal documents and responses would be fonhcoming once the Order was entered. Please advise." Email from Tuan Uong - Re: He thought we were 10/22/2019 MCS Receive & Review going to meet and confer by telephone regarding $450.00 0.1 $45.00 outstanding discovery, but he is out of the country. Email to Tuan Uong - Re: We are awaiting your Dram“ client's supplemental document production and our 10/22/2019 MCS C g current deadline to compel is this Friday. Wi|| your $450.00 0.2 $90.00 orrespondence . . . cllent prOVIde a supplemental document productlon by that date? 10/22/2019 Mos Receive & Review Em?“ "0m Tuan Duong ' Re: RequeSted Memo“ $450.00 0.1 $45.00 of tlme granted. Email to Tuan Uong - Re: We are awaiting your Dram“ client's supplemental document production and our 11/22/2019 MCS g current deadline to compel is this Monday. Wi|| your $450.00 0.1 $45.00Correspondence . . . cllent prOVIde a supplemental document productlon by that date? 11/25/2019 Mos Telephone Can With Tuan. Duong ' Re: Discussmg °“t3tanding $450.00 0.2 $90.00 discovery Issues. 11/25/2019 Mos Receive & Review Em?" "0m Tuan Duong ' Re: RequeSted eXtens'O” $450.00 0.1 $45.00 of tlme granted. Drafting Offer to Compromise Pursuant to Code of Civil 11/25/2019 FWS Documents Procedure Section 998 $65000 0'1 $6500 Drafting Email to Tuan Uong - Re: We are not in receipt of 01/07/2020 MCS your client's supplemental discovery responses in $450.00 0.1 $45.00 Correspondence . . thls case. Please adVIse. Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Dram“ Documents Responsive to Request for 01/09/2020 MCS D g Production of Documents and Electronically Stored $450.00 8.1 $3,645.00 ocuments . . Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanctlon Against Midland Funding, LLC Review and analyze RFP's, Responses to RFP's, Drafting Meet and Confer Correspondence and Draft 01/09/2020 RRR Documents Separate Statement in Suppon of Motion to $55000 1'5 $82500 Compel RFP's. Review and analyze RFP's, MCM Responses to Drafting RFP's, Meet and Confer Correspondence; and 01/09/2020 RRR Documents Draft Separate Statement in Support of Motion to $55000 2'2 $1 ’210'00 Compel MCM RFP's. Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for Drafting Production of Documents and Electronically Stored 01/10/2020 MCS Documents Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction $45000 7'4 $333000 Against Midland Credit Management, |nc., and related documents. Email from Tuan Uong - Re: "Let’s discuss. I’m still 01/15/2020 Mos Receive & Review uncerta'” What Other documents are yo” '°°k'“9 for $450.00 0.1 $45.00 Midland to supplement. Let me know when you have time to chat. Thanks." 02/07/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Tom Landers - Re: He will represent Cross-Defendants going forward and requesting contact of the person working on discovery in this case. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 02/07/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Tom Landers - Re: Providing moving papers in support of our motion to compel and requesting a conformed copy of his Substitution of Attorney. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 03/1 6/2020 FWS Receive & Review Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Midland Funding, LLC's Special Interrogatories to Defendant and Cross- Complainant Mauricio Pinales (Set One), Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Midland Funding, LLC's Request for Production to Defendant and Cross- Complainant Mauricio Pinales (Set One) $650.00 0.3 $195.00 04/08/2020 FWS Receive & Review Midland's supplemental document production. $650.00 1.2 $780.00 04/08/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: Midland and MCM intend on supplementing discovery responses, but require more time in light of shelter in place orders. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 04/1 4/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Jessica Landers - Re: Supplemental RFPs for Mldland and MCM and letter from Imanaka $450.00 1.3 $585.00 04/27/2020 MCS Receive & Review Voice mail message from Imanaka - Re: Various issues. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 04/28/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Imanaka - Re: | am in receipt of your voicemail. Please put your request in the body of an email and advise on status of your client's supplemental responses. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 04/28/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: Various discovery issues discussed, attaching copies of discovery responses and discovery served. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 04/29/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Imanaka - Re: We will review your client's supplemental responses and advise whether we will withdraw our motions to compel. Also request 30 day extension of time in which to serve Defendant's discovery responses. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 04/29/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: Requested extension of time granted to May 29, 2020 and requesting confirmation of receipt of supplemental responses and document production. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 04/29/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Imanaka - Re: Meet and confer about inadequate discovery responses and document production. $450.00 0.5 $225.00 05/1 5/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: Requesting telephonic meet and confer. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 05/1 5/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Imanaka - Re: "Over two weeks ago, | asked if your clients intended to supplement their responses to Midland RFP No. 8 and MCM RFP Nos. 4 and 5 (see below email). | have yet to receive a response to this inquiry. Please advise." $450.00 0.1 $45.00 05/1 5/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: She would like to discuss on the telephone. $450.00 0.1 $45.00 05/22/2020 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Imanaka - Re: Informing of the policy to conduct a majority of meet and confer communications in writing, and asking for responses to various questions regarding her clients‘ supplemental document production. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 05/22/2020 MCS Receive & Review Email from Imanaka - Re: Responding to various questions regarding her clients' supplemental discovery responses. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 05/27/2020 MCS Receive & Review Midland Credit Management's Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Document Production, and related documents. $450.00 1.2 $540.00 05/27/2020 MCS Receive & Review Midland Funding's Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Document Production, and related documents. $450.00 1.2 $540.00 05/29/2020 MCS Drafting Documents Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Credit Management, Inc. $450.00 5.8 $2,610.00 06/01 /2020 MCS Drafting Documents Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Funding, LLC $450.00 3.2 $1 ,440.00 06/02/2020 MCS Drafting Documents Supplemental Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Support of Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Credit Management, |nc., Supplemental Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Funding, LLC, and related proofs of service. $450.00 2.1 $945.00 06/08/2020 MCS Receive & Review Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Further. Denied in both instances. $450.00 0.2 $90.00 06/08/2020 MCS Reviewing Documents Review file in anticipation of attending Motion to Compel Further to contest Tentative. $450.00 1.2 $540.00 06/09/2020 MCS Attend Hearing on Motion to Compel Further. Argued the four points raised in the Reply brief as to why the motion is not made moot by Cross-Defendant's funher responses. Imanaka argued largely the same points raised in her opposition. Court to take the matter under submission. $450.00 0.9 $405.00 06/20/2020 FWS Drafting Documents Responses to Form Interrogatories-General (Set One) $650.00 2.5 $1 ,625.00 06/22/2020 FWS Receive & Review Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions $650.00 0.5 $325.00 06/22/2020 FWS Drafting Documents Responses to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Midland Finding, LLC’s Special Interrogatories to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Mauricio Pinales (Set One); Responses to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Midland Finding, LLC’s Request for Production to Defendant and Cross- Complainant Mauricio Pinales (Set One) $650.00 2.9 $1 ,885.00 08/1 2/2020 MCS Drafting Documents Opposition to Midland's Motion to Compel. $450.00 2.1 $945.00 With Client - Re: review discovery responses and 08/12/2020 RRR Meetmg obtain signed verifications (conducted in Spanish). $55000 1'5 $82500 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Midland Funding, LLC's Motion to 08/12/2020 RRR Read & Approve compe' ReSponseS.” Form '“terrogator'es’ $550.00 0.1 $55.00 SpeCIal Interrogatorles, and Requests for Production of Documents Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions. Revise and edit Declaration of Fred W. Schwinn in Support of Opposition to Midland Funding, LLC's Drafting Motion to Compel Responses to Form 08/12/2020 FWS Documents Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and $65000 0'2 $13000 Requests for Production of Documents Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions. 08/14/2020 RRR Receive & Review Em?" "0”? Me"Y'”9 'manaka ' Re: mu't'p'e ema" $550.00 0.1 $55.00 chaln settllng up a telephone call. 08/14/2020 RRR Telephone Can With Mei'Ying 'manakaf Re: confidentia' $550.00 0.1 $55.00 settlement communication. Drafting 08/14/2020 RRR Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Documents Draft email to Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: our client Dram“ has rejected your client’s offer to resolve this case. 08/14/2020 RRR Corresgondence However, our client will agree to settle this matter $550.00 0.1 $55.00 p on the terms set fonh in the attached Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Midland Funding, LLC's Motion to 08/18/2020 Mos Receive & Review comPe' ReSponseS.” Form '“terrogator'es’ $450.00 0.5 $225.00 SpeCIal Interrogatorles, and Requests for Production of Documents Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions, and related documents. 08/21/2020 RRR Telephone Can From Me"Y'“9 'marfaki‘ ' Re: conf'dent'a' $550.00 0.2 $110.00 settlement communication. 09/02/2020 RRR Drafting Draft email to Mei-Ylingllmanaka - Re: confidential $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Correspondence settlement communication. 09/10/2020 RRR Telephone Can W'th Me"Y'“9 'manakaf Re: conf'dem'a' $550.00 0.2 $110.00 settlement communication. 09/10/2020 RRR Drafting Draft email to MeI-Yllngllmanaka - Re: confidential $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Correspondence settlement communication. (39/10/2020 RRR Drafting Revise and edit Settlement Agreement and Mutual $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Documents Release 09/17/2020 RRR Receive & Review Ema" "0m Me"Y'”9. 'm.a”aka ' Re: conf'dem'a' $550.00 0.1 $55.00 settlement communication Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Midland Funding, LLC and Cross-Defendant Midland Credit 09/18/2020 FWS Receive & Review Management, |nc.'s Joint Offer of Compromise $650.00 0.2 $130.00 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Telephone Call to Client - Re: Explained the CCP 09/18/2020 RRR Telephone Call 998 offer. We will accept the CCP 998 offer and file $550.00 0.5 $275.00 a motion for attorney fees. Drafting Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Compromise 09/18/2020 FWS Documents Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 $65000 0'1 $6500 12/16/2020 Fws Drawng Proposed Judgment $650.00 0.1 $65.00 Documents 02/02/2021 RRR Receive & Review Judgment $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of Fred W. Schwinn in Support of Motion for Attorney 03/28/2021 RRR Bramng Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of $550.00 3.5 $1 ,925.00ocuments . . Raeon R. Roulston In Suppon of Motlon for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales Revise and edit Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of Fred W. Schwinn in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees Drafting and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of 03/29/2021 RRR Documents Raeon R. Roulston in Suppon of Motion for $550.00 1.0 $550.00 Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales; Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Mauricio Pinales 03/29/2021 RRR Drawng Proof of Electronic Service. $550.00 0.1 $55.00 Documents Totals: 83.6 $43,450.00 Expenses Date EE Activity Description Cost Quantity Line Total . . Defendant Mauricio Pinales' Answer to Complaint 02/09/2019 FWS Coun FIIIng Fee of Midland Funding, LLC $181.00 1.0 $181.00 02/09/2019 FWS Coun Filing Fee Cross-Complaint for Damages (Reclassification) $140.00 1.0 $140.00 Electronic Finn Defendant Mauricio Pinales' Answer to Complaint 02/09/2019 FWS Fees g of Midland Funding, LLC, and Cross-Complaint for $15.35 1.0 $15.35 Damages Process Server One Legal - Re: Proof of Service of Summons 02/22/2019 FWS Expense served on Midland Credit Management, Inc. $4000 1'0 $4000 (32/25/2019 FWS Electronic Filing Proof of Servnce of Summons - Re: Mldland Credlt $5.72 1.0 $5.72 Fees Management, Inc. (33/07/2019 FWS Electronic FIIIng Consentlto Elegtronlc SerVIce and Notlce of $5.72 1.0 $5.72 Fees Electronlc SerVIce Address 07/12/2019 FWS Coun Filing Fee Stipulated Protective Order $20.00 1.0 $20.00 07/12/2019 Fws Efecsmc Fi'ing Stipulated Protective Order $6.32 1.0 $6.32 Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for 01/10/2020 MCS Coun Filing Fee Production of Documents and Electronically Stored $60.00 1.0 $60.00 Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Credit Management, Inc. Motion to Compel Funher Responses and . . . Documents Responsive to Request for 01/10/2020 MCS EleCtromC ang Production of Documents and Electronically Stored $7.52 1.0 $7.52 ees . . Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanctlon Against Midland Credit Management, Inc. Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Documents Responsive to Request for 01/10/2020 MCS Coun Filing Fee Production of Documents and Electronically Stored $60.00 1.0 $60.00 Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Funding, LLC Motion to Compel Funher Responses and Electronic Filing Documents Responsive to Request for 01/10/2020 MCS Fees Production of Documents and Electronically Stored $7.52 1.0 $7.52 Information (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Funding, LLC Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses and Electronic Filing Documents Responsive to Request for Production 06/02/2020 MCS Fees of Documents and Electronically Stored Information $572 1'0 $572 (Set One) and for Monetary Sanction Against Midland Credit Management, |nc., and Midland Funding, LLC 06/09/2020 Fws 00””03” Hearing on Motions to Compel $54.00 1.0 $54.00 Appearance Fee Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Midland Funding, LLC's Motion to 08/12/2020 RRR Electronic FIIIng Compel Responseslto Form Interrogatorles, $5.80 1.0 $5.80 Fees SpeCIal Interrogatorles, and Requests for Production of Documents Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Electronic Filing Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Compromise 09/18/2020 FWS Fees Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 $572 1'0 $572 12/16/2020 Fws Efecstron'c F"'”9 Proposed Judgment $5.72 1.0 $5.72 03/30/2021 RRR Coun Filing Fee Efigj’gsfor Attorney Fees and C°StS by Mauric'o $60.00 1.0 $60.00 Expense Total: $686.11 Time Entry Sub-Total: $43,450.00 Expense Sub-Total: $686.11 Sub-Total: $44,1 36.11 Total: $44,1 36.11 Amount Paid: $0.00 Balance Due: $44,1 36.11