Memorandum Points and Authorities

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 11, 2021

California GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountain View, 21 CH009861 Santa Clara - Civil JAMES L. JACOBS (SBN 158277) KATHRYN C. CURRY (SBN 157099) GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 2570 W. E1 Camino Real, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 428-3900 Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 Email: jjacobs@gca1aw.com kcurry@gca1aw.com Attorneys for Respondent MICHAEL HAN Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/1/2021 3:34 PM Reviewed By: M. Sorum Case #21 CH009861 Envelope: 7385455 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION BRIAN TRAN, Petitioner, V. MICHAEL HAN, Respondent. CASE NO. 21CH009861 RESPONDENT MICHAEL HAN’S M. So MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FORATTORNEYS’ FEES Date: Time: Dept: D 12/21/21 TB 2:00 PM 4 rum Ps & As ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES- CASE N0. 21CH009861 California GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountain View, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION Respondent Michael Han respectfully requests that he be awarded $35,180 in attorney’s fees that he incurred to successfully defend Petitioner’s Brian’s Tran application for a civil harassment restraining order. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The following facts were established during the hearings 0n Petitioner’s Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (“Petition”). The majority of the facts are also set forth in Mr. Han’s declaration filed in Response to Petitioner’s Request for a Civil Harassment Restraining Order. (EX. 3 t0 Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”).) A. Mr. Han and Mr. Tran Start a Business Together In October 2016, he and his longtime friend, Brian Tran, started a company together called Splend. Thereafter, they brought in a management team t0 run the Company and to raise capital. In 2019, the CEO of Splend, Richard Bleszynski, tried to raise capital for another round of financing, but investors were demanding that the equity shares 0f the company be restructured, which would result in a decrease in Mr. Tran’s ownership percentage of Splend. After Mr. Tran would not agree to the restructuring of his shares, the potential investors pulled out, there was insufficient money for the company to continue, and the entire management team, including Mr. Bleszynski, left. (Id.) By the end of 2019, Splend was no longer operating. B. Mr. Han Leaves Splend Business In later 2019, after he had left Splend, Mr. Bleszynski asked Mr. Han to join him t0 start a new company. (EX. 3 to RJN.) Mr. Han agreed. At the end of 2019, Mr. Han notified Mr. Tran of his decision to leave Splend. Mr. Han and Mr. Tran have had no personal interactions since that meeting. Mr. Han asked Tran to remove him from all Splend accounts, including the company’s bank account with Bank of America. After Mr. Tran failed to d0 so, Mr. Han closed the Splend bank account in March 2020 and had the funds ($584) sent t0 Mr. -1- Ps & As ISO MOTION T0 FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES- CASE N0. 2 1 CH009861 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountaln Vlew Ca11f0rn1a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tran. Mr. Tran, however, reopened the account (keeping Mr. Han as a signatory), and deposited the funds back into it. Upon the advice 0f Bank 0f America, Mr. Han removed the funds and closed the account again with written instructions not to reopen in his name. In response, Mr. Tran filed a police report and complaint with Bank 0fAmerica claiming that Mr. Han had stolen the funds. After an investigation, Bank ofAmerica cleared Mr. Han of any wrongdoing. The San Jose police also closed its case. On April 30, 2020, Mr. Tran’s home in Evergreen was allegedly broken into. Mr. Tran reported Mr. Han as a suspect t0 the police. Mr. Han did not burglarize Mr. Tran’s home. Due to shelter in place orders for Santa Clara County due to COVID 19, Mr. Han was at home on the day of the alleged burglary and was fixing a server (he is in IT) and helping his wife with an on-line application during the time the burglary occurred. There was plausible reason for Mr. Han to burglarize Mr. Tran’s home since Splend was a defunct company and Mr. Han had access to the corporate bank account and the Company’s financial records. Mr. Han gave the police a statement over the phone, no charges were filed against him, and the case was closed. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Mr. Tran Files a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders On February 11, 2021, Brian Tran filed a request for civil harassment restraining orders ("Petition") with the Superior Court of California, County 0f Santa Clara. (EX. 1 to RJN.) The Petition requested civil harassment personal conduct orders, stay away orders, and attorneys' fees and costs against Respondent. (Id.) The Petition was based 0n the events relating t0 the closure 0f the Splend bank account and Mr. Tran’s contention that Mr. Han had burglarized his home ten months earlier. (Id.) The Petition was not served on Mr. Han until March 8, 2021. (EX. 2 t0 RJN.) On March 29, 2021, Mr. Han filed a response t0 the application along with a supporting declaration. (EX. 3 to RJN.) -2- Ps & As ISO MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES - CASE N0. 21CH009861 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountaln Vlew Ca11f0rn1a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Initial Hearing on the Petition The parties appeared for the initial hearing on the Petition on April 6, 2021. (RJN EX. 4.) The hearing was continued to June 2, 2021 for a 1/2 to 1 day trial. (Id.) C. Respondent’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notice On April 12, 2021, Respondent served a deposition notice t0 Petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion t0 quash the deposition notice, which was heard on shortened notice pursuant to Mr. Han’s exparte application. (RJN 1] 5, 6.) On May 11, 2021, the motion to quash was heard and granted. (Id. 1] 7) D. Continued Hearings on the Petition On June 2, 2021, the parties appeared for the hearing, Which began but was not completed and the hearing was continued t0 June 14, 2021. (RJN EX. 5.) After a full day of further hearing on June 14, 2021, the evidentiary portion of the hearing was concluded and the parties were ordered t0 reappear 0n August 3, 2021 for the Court’s ruling. (RJN EX. 6.) On August 3, 2021, the issued its ruling denying the Petition. (RJN Ex. 7.) IV. LEGALARGUMENT E. Legal Standard The law governing civil harassment restraining orders is set forth in Civil Code of Procedure § 527.6. Section 527.6(5) specifically authorizes the award 0f attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party. In actions for injunctive relief for harassment, the prevailing party "may be awarded court costs and attorneys' fees..." (Code CiV. Proc., § 527.6(r).) F. Mr. Han is the Prevailing Party and Should Be Awarded his Fees Because the petition was denied, Mr. Han is the prevailing party. (RJN EX. 7.) G. Mr. Han’s Requested Attorneys' Fees are Reasonable and Necessary. To calculate a reasonable fee, “courts apply the ‘lodestar’ method, which is obtained by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended 0n litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Ca1.3d 621. ) Under the lodestar method, attorneys should be compensated for “all hours reasonably spent” on the -3- Ps & As ISO MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES - CASE N0. 21CH009861 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountaln Vlew Ca11f0rn1a litigation. (Id. at 624.) 1. The $550 Hourly Rate Charged by Mr. Han’s Counsel is Reasonable as t0 Plaintiffs Attornevs' Educational Background, Experience, Skill, and Record “The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing rate in the community for similar work. As we noted a reasonable hourly rate is the product 0f a multiplicity 0f factors.... the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, ”9 the attorney's reputation, and the undesirability of the case. (See Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Ca1.App.3d 999, 1004 [quoting Serrano].) In the present case, $550 is a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Curry and Mr. Jacobs within the prevailing market rate and is, in fact, the actual rate that they charged for this matter. (Curry Decl. 11 11.) These rates are also reasonable based on the experience 0f the attorneys involved, who have more than 30 years of litigation experience. (Id. 1H] 3-5, 9, 11, 12, EX. A.) This Court previously determined that the $550 hourly rate for Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Curry was reasonable based 0n their experience and the nature 0f the case. (EX. B t0 Curry Decl.) 2. The Hours EXDended bV Plaintiffs Counsel Were Reasonable Given the Hearings and Issues involved in the Petition The lodestar amount is determined by multiplying the time spent by the hourly fee. Actual hours spent offer substantial evidence 0f reasonable time spent, but the Court may properly determine reasonable hours spent based upon the circumstances 0f the case, attorneys' estimates, 0r block billings. (Nightinqil v. Hyundai MotorAm (1994) 31 Ca1.App.4th 99; Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2 Ca1.App.4th 1644; Best v. California Apprenticeship Counsel (1987) 193 Ca1.App.3d 1448.) As set forth in the Declaration of Kathryn C. Curry, the hours spent defending the Petition were reasonable and necessary. (Curry Decl. 1H] 6-18.) The time set forth in Exhibit C represents time that was actually billed, or will be billed, for this matter. (Curry Decl. 1] 13-16.) Exhibit C sets forth detailed entries for all of the tasks performed that were charged. (Id.) Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Curry did not bill for duplicate tasks or projects. (Id. 1] 7.) -4- Ps & As ISO MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES - CASE N0. 21CH009861 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Mountaln Vlew Ca11f0rn1a Because Mr. Jacobs was the contact person for the client and was in charge of strategy, he billed for his time communicating with the client and providing direction t0 Ms. Curry. (Curry Decl. 1] 6, 7) When Mr. Jacobs billed his time for discussions 0r meetings with Ms. Curry, Ms. Curry did not charge 0r bill Mr. Han for those same discussions. (1d,) Similarly, although Ms. Curry attended meetings with the clients and Mr. Jacobs, only Mr. Jacobs time was billed. (Id.) Although Mr. Jacobs was copied on all email and reviewed all documents, he did not bill the client for these activities. (Id. 1] 8.) Accordingly, the $35,180 in attorney’s fees incurred t0 defend the Petition was was reasonable and necessary. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Mr. Han respectfully requests that he be awarded $35,180 in attorney’s fees -- the legal fees he actually incurred in defending the Petition. DATED: October 1, 2021 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP By: /s/ Kathrvn C. Currv Kathryn C. Curry James L. Jacobs Attorneys for Respondent MICHAEL HAN -5- Ps & As ISO MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES - CASE N0. 21CH009861