DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 6, 2020H 200V361271 Santa Clara - Civil A. Flo esca Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/6/2021 5:53 PM Reviewed By: A. Floresca Case #20CV361271 Envelope: 7016315 Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622) Matthew C. Salmonsen (SBN 302854) CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 1435 K011 Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, California 95 1 12-4610 Telephone Number: (408) 294-6100 Facsimile Number: (408) 294-6190 Email Address: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant RYAN KINGSLAND SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KOOOQONUl-RUJN NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff, V. RYAN KINGSLAND, Defendant. RYAN KINGSLAND, Cross-Complainant, V. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; CHRISTOPHER D. MANDARICH, individually and in his official capacity; and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. Case N0. 20CV3 6 1271 (Unlimited Civil Case) DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS BY RYAN KINGSLAND Hearing Date: September 30, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Hearing Dept: 20 Hearing Judge: Hon. Socrates Manoukian 161 North First Street San Jose, California Hearing Location: I, Fred W. Schwinn, declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the state of California, that the following statements are true: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed t0 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 DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Defendant/Cross-Complainant, RYAN KINGSLAND (hereinafter “KINGSLAND”). 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 0f the bars of 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 0f 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 of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 1997 (Inactive) U.S. District Court for the Western District 0f 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 of California Sacramento, California 2003 /// DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Los Angeles, California 2003 U.S. District Court for the Southern District 0f 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 of Washburn 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 of California, Santa Clara County Bar Association, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association 0f Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, California Bankruptcy Forum, and a former member 0f 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 0f 2003, I relocated my law practice t0 California. My practice is limited exclusively to the representation 0f 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 to protect consumers. My firm, Consumer Law Center, Inc., undertakes representation in many consumer cases with the expectation of being paid a contingency amount from the proceeds of 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. DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 6. I have given a number of lectures t0 consumers and professional groups on consumer law issues, including the Volunteer Legal Service Program of The Bar Association of San 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 0f the National Association of Consumer Advocates since 1999 and have attended at least fifteen (15) national conferences exclusively 011 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 AVVOI 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 - 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 0f place 0f trial for a reasonable period Within the 20 days prior t0 trial if personal service 0f trial subpoena would ordinarily be necessary t0 secure that affiant’s attendance at trial). APPELLATE COURTS o Timlick v. Nat’l Enter. Sys., Ina, _Cal. App. 5th_ (Cal. App. lst Dist. 2021) (trial court had jurisdiction t0 hear and grant renewed discovery motion that was pending When order 1 See http://WWW.aVV0.com/attorneys/95 1 13 -ca-frederick-schwinn-3 6 1 966.htm1 _ 4 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 20CV36127 1 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO granting summary judgment motion, Which was later reversed 0n appeal, was entered). Davis v. Mandarich Law Grp., 790 F. App’x 877 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversing and remanding FDCPA judgment for Defendants). 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). Timlick v. Nat’l Enter. Sys., Ina, 35 Cal. App. 5th 674 (Cal. App. lst Dist. 2019) (debt collector cannot unilaterally “pick 0ft” the named plaintiff and avoid class action litigation). Professional Collection Consultants v. Lujan, 23 Cal. App. 5th 685 (Cal. App. lst Dist. 2018) (Delaware 3-year statute 0f limitations applies in California debt buyer’s collection cases). 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 0f 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. 1st 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 t0 California Code 0f 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. Appx. 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). DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 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) Griego v. Tehama Law G171, P.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152306 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2020) (granting motion t0 remand Rosenthal case). 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). Izett v. Crown Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211459 (N.D. 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 (ND. Cal. June 16, 2017) (granting motion to remand RFDCPA class action case). Garcia v. Stanley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32550 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173058 (ND. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs in FDCPA case). Garcia v. Creditors Specially Seru, 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 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (construing Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 98). Datta v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36446 (ND. 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 (N.D. 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 (N.D. 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). Mamani v. Mezzetti Fin. Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24153 (ND. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015) (granting motion t0 strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). Bentkowsky v. Benchmark Recovery, Ina, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12694 (ND. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015) (granting motion to 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 OVD. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses in FDCPA case). -6- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 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 (N.D. 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 (ED. 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 (ND. 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 (ND. Cal. July 10, 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 (ND. 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 (N.D. 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 (ND. 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 (N.D. 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 (ND. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (denying motion t0 dismiss 0r stay action based 0n principles of abatement). Gold v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27605 (N.D. 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 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2013) (granting motion for attorney fees and costs). Johnson v. CFS II, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178542 (ND. 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 OVD. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) (granting in part, motion for summary judgment). Ansari v. Elec. Document Processing Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124798 (ND. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) (granting in part, motion for summary judgment). Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116598 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, -7- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 2013) (denying motion t0 dismiss and motion t0 strike FDCPA case). Chan v. Booska, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109005 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013) (awarding attorney fees in FDCPA case). Gandeza v. Brachfeld Law Group, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91534 WD. Cal. June 27, 2013) (granting motion t0 strike afirmative defenses). Johnson v. CFS, II, Ina, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61017 (N.D. 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 t0 amend). De Amara] v. Goldsmith & Hull, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24085 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss and motion to transfer). 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. Fm, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112195 (CD. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses). Ear v. Empire Collection Auths., Ina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110906 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) (granting in part motion t0 strike affirmative defenses). Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Ina, 877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. 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 (E.D. 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 to 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 Cushing), 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 of 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 t0 assert affirmative defense in Truth in Lending Act -8- DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO case). Finch v. Household Fin. Corp. III (In re Finch), 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 2049 (Bankr. D. Kan. NOV. 7, 2003) (finding Violations 0f the Truth in Lending Act and granting rescission 0f home mortgage loan). Bilal v. Household Finance Corporation III (In re Bilal), 296 B.R. 828 (D. Kan. 2003) (holding that the inclusion 0f 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 to 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). Quenzer v. Advanta Mortg. Corp. United States, 288 B.R. 884 (D. Kan. 2003) (equitable principles apply in Truth in Lending Act rescission). 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). In re Green, 287 B.R. 827 (D. Kan. 2002) (holding that the inclusion of language in a Chapter 13 Plan which attempts t0 discharge student loans should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis). In re Crosby, 261 B.R. 470 (D. Kan. 2001) (holding that the issuance 0f 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 ofhome mortgage loan). 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 No. / Date Judge Timlick v. NCB Management Services, Lake County CIV-416919 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-l8-00541 Rodriguez (January 9, 2020) Pajarit v. Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. San Mateo County 18-CIV-05015 Weiner (November 18, 2019) Scribner v. Simm Assocs., Ina, et al. Santa Clara County 17-CV-3 12803 Kuhnle (October 7, 2019) _ 9 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 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 1 5221 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, et al. (November 13, 2018) Corso v. ML. Zager, P.C., et al. Santa Clara County 16-CV-298607 Kirwan (June 29, 2018) Atlantic Credit & Finance Special Santa Cruz County CIS-CV-182328 Burdick Finance Unit III, LLC v. Nevarez, er 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 of 5:15-CV-00188-LHK Koh California (January 13, 2017) Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC Northern District 0f 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-03019-JW Ware California (August 3 1 , 2009) Carrizosa v. Stassinos Northern District of 5:05-CV-O2280-RMW Whyte California (March 30, 2009) TIME AND HOURLY RATE 12. hourly rate 0f $700.00. This is the hourly rate that my firm currently charges t0 our fee-paying clients. This hourly rate is reasonable, and comparable to the rates being charged by attorneys 0f similar experience and expertise in the San Francisco Bay Area’s federal and state courts. This Court recently awarded me $700.00 per hour in the case 0f LWVV Funding, LLC v. Pishdad, Santa Clara N0. For my services as an attorney in this case, Consumer Law Center, Inc., seeks my DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN -10- Case No. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 18CV337001 (June 16, 2021) (Manoukian, J.). 13. On January 1, 2021, I raised my hourly rate t0 $700.00, representing the first increase in my hourly rate since January 1, 2019. Courts in the San Francisco Bay Area have awarded my previous hourly rate 0f $650.00 in a number of cases, including: Case Name Court Case N0. / Date Judge Timlick v. NCB Management Services, Lake County CIV-4 1 69 1 9 Lunas Inc. (June 11, 2021) Pajarit v. Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. San Mateo County 18-CIV-05015 Weiner (December 17, 2020) Scribner v. Simm Assocs., Ina, et al. Santa Clara County 17CV3 12803 Lucas (December 2, 2020) Midland Funding, LLC v. Dong San Mateo County 18-CIV-O6 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) Homer v. Crown Asset Management, LLC Santa Clara County 17-CV-3 1 5221 Kuhnle (July 3 1 , 2019) 14. 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 0f $600.00 in a number 0f cases, including: DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case Name Court Case No. / 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., et 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-517685 Ulmer County (October 17, 2018) Davis v. Cavalry SPVI, LLC Santa Clara County 2016-1-CV-301730 Kuhnle (August 20, 2018) _ 11 _ Case No. 20CV361271 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO Mechanics Bank, Inc. v. Porter San Mateo County 17-CIV-05621 Greenberg (July 16, 2018) 15. 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 of the work, using the MyCase online software for law offices. The time records do not duplicate work performed in any other file. 16. I have reviewed the time records t0 ensure that all billings were accurate and reasonable. If anything, these time records conservatively understate the amount 0f time that was actually expended in this action. 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 t0 persuade Cross-Defendants to amicably resolve the matter. 17. Consumer Law Center, Inc., seeks compensation for 17.6 hours 0f the total time that I spent performing legal services for KINGSLAND in this case.m 18. In the San Francisco Bay Area it is customary for lawyers t0 bill their clients separately, in addition to 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. 19. The requested attorney’s fees and costs were reasonable and necessary to the litigation in this matter. ENHANCEMENT FACTORS 20. Because KINGSLAND did not have the financial resources t0 hire an attorney 0n an hourly fee-paying basis to defend against MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC’s claim, my firm and I _ 12 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV36127 1 KOOOQONUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-‘r-ir-‘Hr-Ar-‘r-A OONONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNHO agreed t0 represent him 0n a fully contingent basis. Similarly, KINGSLAND’S fair debt collection claims against Cross-Defendants were litigated 0n a fully contingent basis. In addition, we also agreed t0 advance all costs and litigation expenses. Thus, my firm assumed the risk 0f recovering no fee if our client had not prevailed in the litigation. Moreover, in the absence of substantial damages t0 KINGSLAND, my firm and I knew from the outset that compensation for our work would be contingent 011 finding a legal basis for shifting those attorney fees and costs to Cross-Defendants. Thus, the risks 0f nonpayment my firm faced throughout this litigation, up until the parties’ settlement, were substantially greater than the types 0f risks that even contingent-fee lawyers usually face in recovering payment for their work. 21. It is extremely difficult, and often impossible, for individual consumers to obtain representation by lawyers in disputes against credit card companies, debt collectors, 0r debt buyers. Because such disputes usually involves insubstantial economic damages - and in the defense 0f the debt claim by MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, involved no possibility of damages for KINGSLAND - it is difficult t0 attract private counsel t0 assume the consumer’s representation. Moreover, in the San Francisco Bay area, as in the rest of the country, there is a dearth of legal aid counsel to offer representation to consumers in these disputes. 22. Because the lack 0f substantial damage awards and the dearth 0f legal aid resources, consumers seeking representation must increasingly rely upon the prospect 0f court-ordered attorneys’ fees to obtain representation. Since the purpose 0f attorneys’ fees statutes is t0 attract competent counsel t0 undertake such cases, the fee must reflect what the legal market pays for similar work. If the fee is set below that amount the legal marketplace determines to be the reasonable fee, attorneys will not assume representation of persons for whom the statutory fee-shifting statutes are designed t0 protect. _ 13 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case N0. 20CV36127 1 \OOOflOUl-RUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNr-tr-dwr-tr-tr-‘r-tr-Ar-‘r-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOfloUl-PUJNF-‘O 23. It is my expectation, in evaluating cases taken 0n contingent fee basis, that the fee, if the case is successful, should be at least double the normal hourly rate charged by my firm. If the expected fee falls short 0f that mark, my firm and I would be disinclined t0 accept the risk of loss. This practice is consistent with the prevailing practice in the legal community in Northern California for contingent risk cases. It is also my experience that prevailing parties under fee shifting statutes are entitled under California law t0 a substantial enhancement of the fee for contingent risk, usually in the order 0f 2.0 or greater. 24. As courts have said, the practice 0f awarding substantial enhancement of an attorney’s fee when the case is taken on a contingent basis results in n0 windfall or undue bonus to the party’s counsel. The hourly rate used to calculate the lodestar fee is that charged by lawyers Who are promisedpayment 0f their fees regardless 0f Whether they ultimately prevail, and Who receive payment 0f fees 0n a regular, periodic billing basis and not at the termination of the legal claims. In the marketplace, lawyers do not expect contingent-fee litigation to pay the same fee as in cases Where fees are t0 be paid 0n a non-contingent, pay-as-you-go basis. Adjusting the fee upward to reflect the risk of loss makes contingent risk cases competitive in the legal marketplace and ensures that important statutory policies will be vindicated. 25. This practice is consistent With the prevailing practice in the legal community in California for contingent-risk cases as exemplified in the accompanying declaration. It is also my understanding that prevailing parties under fee-shifting statutes are entitled under California law to a substantial enhancement 0f the fee for contingent risk, usually in the order 0f 2.0 or greater. fl Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575) Executed at San Jose, California on August 6, 2021. _ 14 _ DECLARATION OF FRED W. SCHWINN Case No. 20CV36127 1 Consumer Law Center, Inc. 1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104 San Jose, CA 951 1 2-461 O (408) 294-61 00 Consumer Law Center, Inc. $1 9,373.45 001 62 August 6, 2021 Due on Receipt August O6, 2021 Balance Invoice # Invoice Date Payment Terms Due Date Ryan McGavock Kingsland 411 Park Avenue, Apt. 310 San Jose, CA 951 1 O Time Entries Date EE Activity Description Rate Hours Line Total 06/26/2020 RRR Telephone Call From Client - Re: Initial Consult. Explained claims and defenses. Drafted Client's Declaration in support of either Stipulation or Motion to Set Aside Default. Draft, review, and sign engagement agreement. $600.00 1.5 $900.00 06/26/2020 FWS Drafting Correspondence Draft email to Chris Mandarich - Re: Please be advised that this office has been engaged to represent Ryan Kingsland in the above-referenced matter. A default judgment is currently pending in this case due to our client’s excusable neglect and difficulty finding counsel caused by the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. As we have had several cases together and have always had a good working relationship, | thought that | would seek a stipulation setting aside the default in this case before filing a motion with the Coun. With this email we seek a stipulation to set aside the Entry of Default and the default judgment that is pending. If your client will agree to a stipulation, please let me know and | will prepare a suitable document for your approval and signature. If your client will not stipulate to setting aside the default in this case, please let me know so that we can proceed accordingly $700.00 0.3 $210.00 06/29/2020 FWS Drafting Documents Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment $700.00 1.5 $1 ,050.00 Email from Chris Mandarich - Re: | have had the opportunity to review this file. We served this file in early February. An answer was required well before any COVID-1 9 shelter in place orders were in place. 07/01/2020 FWS Receive & Review You are right. We do have a good working $700.00 0.1 $70.00 relationship and you have always worked with us and be understanding. Let me discuss your request with my client. In the meantime | am authorized to settle this matter with your client $500.00. Draft email to Chris Mandarich - Re: We will not Drafting discuss settlement with a default gun to our head. 07/01/2020 FWS Correspondence Once the default has been set aSIde, we can $700.00 0.1 $70.00 explore settlement. A stipulation is attached. Drafting Stipulation to Vacate Entry of Default and 07/01/2020 FWS Documents Judgment by Default and Proposed Order $70000 0'2 $14000 Draft email to Chris Mandarich - Re: he has not Drafting responded to our proposed Stipulation to Vacate 07/10/2020 FWS Correspondence Entry of Default and Judgment by Default and $70000 0'1 $7000 Proposed Order 11/24/2020 FWS Drafting Proposed Order Granting Motion to Set ASIde $700.00 0.2 $140.00 Documents Default Order Granting Motion to Set Aside Default and 12/09/2020 FWS Receive & Review Vacate Default Judgment signed by Judge $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Socrates P. Manoukian 12/09/2020 FWS Drafting Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and $700.00 3-0 $2,100.00 Documents Damages Drafting Notice of Entry of Order Granting Motion to Set 12/10/2020 FWS Documents Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment $70000 0'1 $7000 Drafting _ . . 12/10/2020 FWS Documents gross Complalnt for Declaratory Relief and $700.00 1.5 $1 ,050-00amages Drafting Defendant Ryan Kingsland's Answer to Complaint 12/10/2020 FWS Documents of Midland Funding, LLC $700.00 0.3 $210.00 Demand for Copy of Items of Account, Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Special Drafting Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production 12/10/2020 FWS Documents of Documents and Electronically Stored Information $70000 3'0 $2’100'00 (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded to Midland Funding, LLC 12/28/2020 Fws Receive & Review P'a'm'ff's ReSponseS t° Defendant's Demand for $700.00 0.3 $210.00 Copy of Items of Account Receive & Review email from One Legal - Re: 01/06/2021 FWS Receive & Review M'd'and Fundm’ LLC’ was seTved W'th the $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Summons and Cross-Complalnt on January 5, 2021. Receive & Review email from One Legal - Re: 01/12/2021 Fws Receive & Review Mandar'Ch Law Gm", LLP’ Was served W'th the $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Summons and Cross-Complalnt on January 11, 2021. Receive & Review email from One Legal - Re: 01/12/2021 Fws Receive & Review Chr'Stopher D' Mandar'Ch was sewed W'th the $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Summons and Cross-Complaint on January 11, 2021. 01/15/2021 FWS Receive & Review Receive & Review email from David McGaffey - Re: We are in receipt of the cross-complaint filed against cross-defendants Midland Funding, LLC; Mandarich Law Group, LLP; and Christopher Mandarich. Upon review of the proofs of service filed with the coun, it appears that personal service was effectuated on Midland Funding on 1/5/2021, and substituted service was effectuated on Mandarich Law Group, LLP and Christopher Mandarich on 1/1 1/2021. To avoid confusion, may we agree that responsive pleadings for all of the cross-defendants are due February 22, 2021 ? $700.00 0.1 $70.00 01/15/2021 FWS Drafting Correspondence Drafting email to David McGaffey - Re: Granting extension of time to February 22, 2021, for Cross- Defendants' responsive pleadings. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(e)(2), we request that all documents in this case be served by email addressed to me and Messrs. Roulston and Salmonsen. $700.00 0.1 $70.00 01/15/2021 FWS Receive & Review Receive & Review email from Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: Following up on the voicemails | left Ray and Matt, we were just retained by Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”) in the Ryan Kingsland matter, will be handling the defense moving forward, and just learned there are written discovery responses due soon. Given that we are still in the process of investigating the claims and getting up to speed in the matter, may Midland please have an extension until February 16, 2021 to provide responses to the pending written discovery? $700.00 0.1 $70.00 01/15/2021 FWS Drafting Correspondence Drafting email to Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: Granting extension of time to February 16, 2021, for Midland Funding, LLC's discovery responses. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(e)(2), we request that all documents in this case be served by email addressed to me and Messrs. Roulston and Salmonsen. $700.00 0.1 $70.00 01/15/2021 MCS Telephone Call Voicemail message from Mei Ing Imanaka - Re: Requesting extension of time to serve Plaintiff's discovery responses. $500.00 0.1 $50.00 01/29/2021 FWS Receive & Review Receive & Review email from Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: As we get up to speed in this case, | wanted to reach out and inquire about whether there have been any settlement discussions in this case. If so, please let us know where they stand. And, if not, | would appreciate it if Mr. Kingsland would please provide us with a global settlement proposal that would resolve all claims against all parties. $700.00 0.1 $70.00 02/03/2021 MCS Receive & Review Email from Amber Oujiri - Re: She would like to discuss this case via telephone. $500.00 0.1 $50.00 02/04/2021 FWS Receive & Review Notice of Association of Counsel - Re: Thomas F. Landers and Mei-Ying M. Imanaka @ Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC $700.00 0.1 $70.00 02/04/2021 FWS Receive & Review Midland Funding, LLC's Answer to Ryan Kingsland's Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages (General denial and 4 unsupponed affirmative defenses) $700.00 0.2 $140.00 02/04/2021 MCS Drafting Correspondence Email to Amber Oujuri - Re: "Please provide more details about the topics you would like to discuss on the telephone." $500.00 0.1 $50.00 Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production 02/04/2021 Fws Bgfmgems of Documents and Electronically Stored Information $700.00 2.0 $1 ,400.00 (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded to Mandarich Law Group, LLP Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Special Dram“ Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production 02/04/2021 FWS Documgents of Documents and Electronically Stored Information $700.00 2.0 $1 ,400.00 (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded to Christopher D. Mandarich Email from Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: I’m following up on my request below for a global settlement . . proposal in this matter. Please advise. 02/04/2021 RRR Receive & ReVIew Also, I understand that Mr. Kingsland has two $600.00 0.1 $60.00 accounts with Midland. Midland is willing to include both in a settlement. Cross-Defendants' Joint Offer of Compromise 02/05/2021 FWS Receive & Review Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure $700.00 0.2 $140.00 Section 998 Receive & Review email from Mei-Ying Imanaka - Re: In light of the pending 998, may Midland please 02/10/2021 FWS Receive & Review have an extension on the pending discovery until $700.00 0.1 $70.00 March 16, which is one-week after Mr. Kingsland’s deadline to respond to the 998? 02/22/2021 FWS Drafting Drafting email to Client - Re: Please call me for a $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Correspondence case update. Telephone call from Client - Re: Case update. Explained the CCP 998 offer and the risks of not 02/22/2021 FWS Telephone Call taking it. We Wm accept the 998 offer and file a $700.00 0.5 $350.00 motion for attorney fees. Dram“ Notice of Acceptance of Joint Offer of Compromise 02/22/2021 FWS D g Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, $700.00 0.6 $420.00 ocuments Proposed Judgment 07/01/2021 FWS Receive & Review Judgment by Clerk $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Drafting . 07/01/2021 FWS Notlce of Entry of Judgment by Clerk $700.00 0.1 $70.00 Documents Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorney Fees by Drafting Ryan Kingsland; Memorandum of Points and 07/29/2021 RRR Documents Authorities in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees $60000 1'2 $72000 by Ryan Kingsland Drafting Draft email to Ronald Wilcox - Re: soliciting an 07/29/2021 RRR Correspondence ExpgnlDeclaratIon In suppon of hourly rates and $600.00 0.1 $60.00 multiplier. Drafting Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 07/30/2021 RRR Documents of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Kingsland $60000 2'5 $1 ’500'00 Declaration of Fred W. Schwinn in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Kingsland; Drafting Declaration of Raeon R. Roulston in Support of 08/02/2021 RRR Documents Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Kingsland; $60000 1'8 $1 ’080'00 Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Kingsland 08/02/2021 RRR Receive & Review Ema” "0m Rona'd W”.C°X ' prOV'dm '“format'on $600.00 0.2 $120.00 for expert fee declaratlon Dram“ Expen Declaration of Ronald Wilcox in Support of 08/02/2021 RRR D g Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by Ryan $600.00 1.6 $960.00ocuments . Kingsland 08/03/2021 RRR Drafting Draft email to Ronald Wilcox - Re: multiple email $600.00 0.1 $60.00 Correspondence chain finalizing Expert Declaration. Dram“ Revise and edit Expen Declaration of Ronald 08/03/2021 RRR D g Wilcox in Suppon of Motion for Attorney Fees and $600.00 0.3 $180.00 ocuments . Costs by Ryan ngsland Revise and edit Declaration of Fred W. Schwinn in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Dram“ Kingsland; Declaration of Raeon R. Roulston in 08/04/2021 RRR D g Support of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan $600.00 0.9 $540.00ocuments . . Kingsland; Declaration of Matthew C. Salmonsen in Suppon of Motion for Attorney Fees by Ryan Kingsland Totals: 28.2 $1 8,650.00 Expenses Date EE Activity Description Cost Quantity Line Total 06/29/2020 Fws Court Filing Fee Mono” t° set As'de Defau” and vacate Defau” $181 .00 1.0 $181 .00 Judgment 06/29/2020 FWS Electronic Filing Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default $1 1 .15 1.0 $1 1 .15 Fees Judgment 11/24/2020 FWS Electronic FIIIng Proposed Order Grantlng Motlon to Set ASIde $5.72 1_0 $5.72 Fees Default 12/10/2020 Fws Court Filing Fee Gross'comp'a'm f°.r.De‘?'arat°ry Rem and $140.00 1.0 $140.00 Damages (Reclassmcatlon) 12/10/2020 FWS Electronic Filing Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief and $9.92 1.0 $9.92 Fees Damages Process Server One Legal - Re: Service of Summons and Cross- 01/05/2021 FWS Expense Complaint on Midland Funding, LLC $4000 1'0 $4000 Process Server One Legal - Re: Service of Summons and Cross- 01/1 “2021 FWS Expense Complaint on Christopher D. Mandarich $10925 1'0 $10925 Process Server One Legal - Re: Service of Summons and Cross- 01/1 “2021 FWS Expense Complaint on Mandarich Law Group, LLP $14925 1'0 $14925 . . . Proof of Service of Summons - Re: Midland 01/12/2021 Fws E'ecmn'c F'I'”g Funding, LLC, Mandarich Law Group, LLP, and $5.72 1.0 $5.72 ees . . Christopher D. Mandarich Electronic Filing Notice of Acceptance of Joint Offer of Compromise 02/22/2021 FWS Fees Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 $572 1'0 $572 07/01/2021 FWS Eleeecstromc Fllmg Notice of Entry of Judgment by Clerk $5.72 1.0 $5.72 08/06/2021 RRR Court Filing Fee Mono” for Attorney Fees and COStS by Ryan $60.00 1.0 $60.00 Kingsland Expense Total: $723.45 Time Entry Sub-Total: $18,650.00 Expense Sub-Total: $723.45 Sub-Total: $1 9,373.45 Total: $19,373.45 Amount Paid: $0.00 Balance Due: $1 9,373.45