DeclarationCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.July 31, 2017S W w v 6| Tr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19| 20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. JOHN A. BRITTON, State Bar No. 55490 1478 Stone Point Drive, #400 f= 7 I _E Fe FY Roseville, CA 95661 Superior Court of Ce a lfornia Telephone: (916) 781-2050 County of Pla Fax: (916) 782-7560 EC 28 2018 Email: jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com Jak ce Cha atters ecutive Officer & Clerk Attorney for Defendants JOHN L. SULLIVAN INVESTMENTS, -®¥: O: Lucatuorto, De puty INC. dba ROSEVILLE TOYOTA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER ) CASENO. SCV 0039808 ) ANDREA FILIMON and EMANUELA ) DECLARATION OF DAVID R. SIDRAN FILIMON, ) IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO AND ) PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ) ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS V. ) ) Date: January 17, 2019 ROSEVILLE TOYOTA, a California ) Time: 8:30 a.m, Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT ) Judge: Hon. Charles Wachob CORPORATION, a California Corporation; RLI ) Dept: 42 INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois ) Corporation; and DOES 1 through 75, inclusive, ) Complaint Filed: July 31, 2017 ) Trial Date: Vacated Defendants. Mf Hl Hl Mf Hf Mf Hl DECLARATION OF DAVID R. SIDRAN -|- BY F A X - _ - I, David R, Sidran declare: 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice before all of the courts of the states of o em NI N A DH F& F WB WV o N N Y N N N KH B S R A a P S E B E F S E T A a r t B B E e S California, Colorado and Nevada as well as the U.S, Court of Federal Claims. I am personally familiar with the matters set forth herein and could competently testify as a witness thereto. : I graduated with an undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1982. I graduated with distinction from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1985. I was admitted to practice law in California in 1985. I was admitted to practice law in Colorado and Nevada in 2000. I was admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2014. . While I currently practice in a number of areas, including employment law, construction law, real estate Jaw and personal injury law, I have concentrated on defending automobile dealers in consumer protection litigation since 2002. I have handled litigation mvolving the defense of automobile dealers since 1986. My practice currently involves representation of dozens of automobile dealers throughout California, My representation of automobile dealers is primarily as insurance defense counse! selected by three of the insurers who underwrite the majority of automobile dealer liability insurance policies in California (Federated Mutual Ins, Co., Sentry Insurance Company and Zurich North America). However, I am also retained directly by a number of automobile dealers as their attorney of choice, . My office is located in Alameda County and I live in Contra Costa County. My representation of automobile dealers has concentrated in the eight (8) Bay Area Counties, but I have also litigated such cases from Humboldt County to San Diego County and many points in between. Se DECLARATION OF DAVD R. SIDRAN w o eC TN A WH & WD NH LY we N M N KN KR N N ON D ON fF m w a A A Ak wD NS Ee F& F 6 we UW A a h e P t s 5, I am AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell. I am certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. I have no record of bar discipline in any of the juriadictions in which [ practice. I have handled over 100 civil trials and binding arbitrations and dozens of appeals over the course of my 34 years of practicing law. . Over the course of the last 15 years, I have defended hundreds of consumer claims against automobile dealers brought under the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and other common law and statutory claims. As attorneys are recoverable by consumer lawyers under the ASFA and CLRA, I have litigated hundreds of attorney fee claims and have defended numerous fee motions brought by consumer lawyers, In that regard, 1 have hired attorney fee experts to provide analyze and provide declarations regarding fee applications made by consumer lawyers, and I have opposed expert declarations supporting consumer lawyer fee applications. However, this is the first time I have submitted a declaration as an expert regarding an attommey fee request. . A representative list of consumer lawyers and law firms I have litigated against includes: a. Kemnitzer Barron & Kreig b. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt c. Otto & Guillen d, O’Connor Mikhov e. The Bickel Law Firm f. McMabon Serepca LLP Vachon Law Firm Hendrickson Law Group Michael Quirk, Esq. j. Marshall Law Group -2- DECLARATION OF DAVD BR. SIDRAN o o o 6 8 S O R U U D O e mw N R H N WR Bw o y u a ao et D R Y B S S G C E a e R R A R T B H I E k. Scott Kaufinan, Esq. 1, Steven Simons, Esq. m. Martin Putnam, Esq. pn. Louis Liberty, Esq. o, Robert Mobasseri, Esq. p- Robert Starr, Esq. q. The Miles Law Firm r, Kevin Faulk. Esq. 8. John Hanson, Esq. t. Hovanes Magarian, Esq. u, Terry Baker, Esq. v. Kevin Faulk, Esq. w. Roger Jaffe, Esq. x. Donald Seth, Esq. y. Mark Romano, Esq. z. Law & Kolakowski . While lawyers in this specialty often cite contingent risk involved in handling these cases for consumers as a basis to claim a multiplier above their lodestar, in my experience the statutes providing a right to attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff and, in the case of the CLRA and other schemes, only allowing fees to a prevailing defendant under very limited circumstances (which are virtually never found to exist by judges and arbitrators), essentially eliminate the contingent risk for attorney’s practicing in this field. In the vast majority of cases I have litigated and settled in this area of the law, the attorney’s fees exceeded the recovery by the consumer, by several orders of magnitude. Far from being a practice area in which the attorney's recovery of legal fees is often at risk, this area of the 3 DECLARATION OF DAVD R, SIDRAN e o S e I N D H WT FB |W BF = N O O N NU N N N N W N e o u a a n k D B S R R S S E eB U R D E E R T A S law provides a virtually guaranteed stream of income on almost all of the consumer lawyer’s casea due to the extreme risk of exposure to huge fee awards that automobile dealers and insurers face when they contest these claims. If anything, the almost guaranteed nature of fee recoveries in this area of the Jaw justifies a reduction from the lawyer's lodestar and rarely, if ever, warrants a multiplier: Given that this case settled without a single deposition being taken, this is not one of those rare cases in which a multiplier should be considered. 9. I have litigated dozens of cases against the Rosner firm representing Plaintiff in this case over the past 10 years. The attorney who billed a large portion of the fees on this case for the Rosner firm, Michael Mixer, is not one I have ever encountered, and I note he is no longer with the firm. 10. I have reviewed the complaint filed by the Rosner firm in this case and it is very similar to dozens I have seen in cases handled by my firm, with some variation for the specific facts of this case, Given that the bulk of the pleading is apparently a well-used template, the amount of time spent to prepare the complaint in this case is far beyond what is reasonable in my experience and opinion. Rather than 16 hours, the reasonable amount of time to prepare the complaint in this case would be no more than 4 hours, 11. I have also opposed several attorney fee motions brought by the Rosner firm over the last 10 years. The motion in this case is, like the complaint, an often-used template that should not have been nearly as time consuming as the amount of time billed. 12. I have reviewed the billing records and moving papers submitted by the Rosner firm in this case and I my opinion and experience the overall amount of time billed by the Rosner firm in this case at 73.60 hours at a total cost of $34,455.00 is far beyond the range of a reasonable fee for a case of this type in which there was no discovery, a complaint was filed, a settlement was n gotiated followed by the filing of the attorney fee motion. In my he DECLARATION OF DAYD R. SIDRAN o o Oo NH N A C A RF Ww W WL = bw oN B N WY WN NM B N R R R S B E B S E a B R R A R E R T S experience, specifically with the Rosner firm, the reasonable attorney’s fees without the fee motion would be in the range of no more than $10,000. This is based in part on at least one on litigating and settling umerous CLRA cases brought by the Rosner firm against automobile dealers I represent as well as litigating and settling dozens of similar cases each year with the various consumer lawyers listed above, 13. In my experience and opinion, the fee motion should add no more than an additional $3,000 to the total of reasonable sttomey’s fees incurred by the Rosner firm in this case for a total of no more than $13,000 in reasonable fees and costs that should have been incurred in this case. 14, Additionally, it is my experience that the “reasonable” rate for attorney services varies between regions in California, I am familiar with this rate differential based on my experience in handling cases in the major urban areas with the highest prevailing hourly rates such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange County and San Diego County as well as smaller urban areas with lower prevailing hourly rates such as Sacramento, San Joaquin, Riverside, San Bemardino, Ventura, Fresno, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, and in less populated areas with significantly lower hourly rates such as Humboldt, Mendocino, Butte, Trinity, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, Yuba, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Tulare Counties. While the rites charged by the Rosner firm are not out of line for the major urban areas of California, they are excessive for the more rural jurisdictions like Placer County were this case was filed. In my experience, top dollar for consumer lawyers in such jurisdictions is in the range of up to $400 per hour, and I would concede that Mr. Rosner and Mr. Barry of the Rosner firm deserve that top rate. Hourly rates for associates in jurisdictions like Placer County are in the range of up to $200 per hour in my experience. Js DECLARATION OF DAVD R. SIDRAN oO o co DT A Hr B R W NH N o o6 UN O N Nw O N ed - _ - SB 8 k R P E B R R R S e S E A U A B D E B E K S T S 15. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true, Executed at San Ramon, CA on December Af , 2018. Aad Ada R, SID. DECLARATION OF DAVD R. SIDRAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NAME; FILIMON v, ROSEVILLE TOYOTA COURT: PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO.:: SCV 0039808 PROOF OF SERVICE Tam employed in the County of Placer, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; I am employed by John A, Britton, Inc., 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, California 95661, Tam familiar with the regular mail collection and processing practice of said business, and in the ordinary course of business the mail is deposited with the United State Postal Service that same day. On this date, I caused to be served the foregoing documents described as: DECLARATION OF DAVID R. SIDRAN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY AND PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS on all parties in said action as addressed below by causing a true copy thereof to be: Telecopied Via Facsimile. { ] [X] Placed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail. [ ] Delivered Via Personal Service [ ] Sent Via Overnight Delivery { | Sent Via Electronic Mail Hawk Barry Raagini Shah ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP Reed Smith LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 100 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92131 Los Angeles, CA 90071 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December Lk , 2018, at Roseville, California.
