Declaration

Cal. Super. - 3rd Dist.July 31, 2017

- S Ww W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. ETrEecn JOHN A. BRITTON, State Bar No. 55490 i m flee Beall 1478 Stone Point Drive, #400 Supers sper Seasonal Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 781-2050 DEC 28 201 Fax: (916) 782-7560 . Email: jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com hoff ake C a elie By: O.’Lucatuorio, Deputy Attorney for Defendants JOHN L. SULLIVAN INVESTMENTS, INC. dba ROSEVILLE TOYOTA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER ) CASENO. SCV 0039808 ) ANDREA FILIMON and EMANUELA ) DECLARATION OF JOHN A. FILIMON, ) BRITTON 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. I, John A. Britton, declare: 1. I make this Declaration of my own personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I would and could testify competently to the matters stated herein. 2. Ireceived my Juris Doctor from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1972. I was admitted to the California Bar in 1973. DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -i- BY F A X ho 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17, 18 19 20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Ihave been practicing business defense litigation for approximately the last 46 years. My practice has been focused on business defense litigation, including a wide variety of cases filed against clients in the automobile industry. Such cases typically include allegations of fraud, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Automobile Sales and Finance Act, and the Business and Professions Code. A copy of my very brief Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”. 4, I estimate that I have handled at least 100 automotive cases. I have deposed many plaintiffs and witnesses, and have defended the depositions of many dealer representatives and individual defendants. The cases I have defended range from a one plaintiff, one defendant single episode claim to multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants, and claims ranging over a span of years. I estimate that I have taken cases to trial on at least ten different occasions. For those cases that went to trial, I also prepared motions in limine, trial briefs, jury instructions, outlines for direct examination, outlines for cross examination, opening statements, closing arguments, and post-trial motions. 5. I presently bill my automotive defense clients at the rate of $250.00 per hour based upon my long-standing relationship with them over the last 46 years. In other cases, however, for other clients, my billing rate can range from $300.00 to $350.00 an hour. 6. This Court is going to decide what attorney’s fees and costs the Plaintiffs are entitled to for the work done by their attorneys. There are multiple factors that this Court will take into consideration including: (1) The nature of the litigation; (2) The difficulty of the case; (3) the amount involved; (4) The skill required to handle the case; (5) The skill employed by the numerous attorneys who worked on the case; (6) The attention given to the case by the numerous attorneys who worked on the case; (7) The success or failure of the case; DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON =2- -: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2) 22 23 24 25 26 (8) Any other circumstances in this case. 7. This is a case where there was little, if any, real “litigation.” The “litigation” consisted of the following: (1) Plaintiffs filed their Complaint; (2) I answered the Complaint on behalf of all of the Defendants, including Roseville Toyota, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and RLI Insurance Company. Toyota Motor Credit Company was the lender which financed the purchase of the motor vehicle for the Plaintiffs. RLI Insurance Company was the insurance company that issued the automobile dealer’s license bond in favor of John L. Sullivan Investments, Inc. dba Roseville Toyota (hereinafter “Roseville Toyota”). (3) There was no discovery initiated by either party whatsoever; (4) There were no depositions noticed or taken; (5) There were no expert disclosures or expert depositions taken; (6) There has been no trial preparation or trial. 8. The total “litigation” involved in this case was essentially written communications by and between the attorneys and very early on in this case, I made great attempts to try to settle the issue of Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. A copy of what I believe to be those relevant communications are attached hereto marked as various exhibits. I want to discuss those various exhibits as we continue on with my Declaration. 9. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is my September 18, 2017 letter to attorney Michael Mixer, the first attorney in the Plaintiffs’ camp with whom I worked in this case. In that letter, [ essentially offered full rescission of the Contract with payments of all monies back to the Plaintiffs made on the Contract. I also offered $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. 10. In response to my September 18, 2017 letter, I received a letter from attorney Michael Mixer. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C”. In that letter, he Mf DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON > pont oe ) 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 specifically agreed “It appears that our representative clients’ settlement positions are not tremendously far off and I am hopeful that we can keep a settlement dialog open in an effort to resolve the matter prior to incurring additional fees and costs thereby making settlement more difficult.” 11. On November 2, 2017, I sent a letter back to Michael Mixer. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D”. I wanted to clarify any questions or concerns that Mr. Mixer had in his letter to me of September 26, 2017. 12. On November 10, 2017, I received a reply from Mr. Mixer. A copy of his November 10, 2017 letter is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E”. All of a sudden, it appears that Mr. Mixer was no longer the lead attorney in this case. Instead, he apparently turned the settlement discussions over to “Mr. Rosner.” For some reason, Mr. Rosner found that my prior written communications to Mr. Mixer “did not feel that it is in good faith and does not constitute an offer. Our clients are also displeased.” 1 found that letter to be incredible, given the nature and extent of my prior communications with Mr. Mixer, reaching out to him essentially offering a full and complete rescission of the Sales Contract and all of the monies paid back to the Plaintiffs, including the payoff of their automobile loan. The only issue remaining at that time was the issue of attorney’s fees and costs to be paid io the Plaintiffs’ law firm. 13. On November 22, 2017, in frustration, I sent another letter to Mr. Mixer. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”. Again, I was doing my best to reach out to attorney Mixer to try to work with him regarding the only remaining issues in the case at that time, namely, the attorney’s fees and costs to be paid to the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs. 14. On November 29, 2017, Mr. Rosner sent me a letter, even though it was on November 22, 2017 that I had sent my letter to Mr. Mixer. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of Mr. Rosner’s November 29, 2017 letter. In that letter, he accuses me of “posturing”. He bragged to me about settling other cases. He refused to let my client inspect the vehicle as part of DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -4. - 6 o 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the settlement process. He demanded a “formally noticed inspection” if my client wanted to inspect the vehicle as part of the settlement. More interesting, however, he admitted that as of November 29, 2017 “The bill I have reviewed needs auditing, as it seems to too high to me for this stage of litigation. Costs are $1,481.39. The fees are over $6,000.00, which I will reduce if your client simply agrees to rescission, or a judge can always set our fees and costs.” He then goes on in the rest of his letter to “saber rattle” with respect to the parts of this case. of which I believe he really knew nothing about given the fact that I had been working the case with Michael Mixer. All that said, however, as of November 29, 2017, “the bill I have reviewed needs auditing, as it seems too high to me for this stage of litigation.” 15. On December 4, 2017, I responded to Mr. Rosner’s letter. A copy of my December 4, 2017 letter is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H”. As part of my frustration, I wanted to share my thoughts with Mr. Rosner, again requesting that we be given an opportunity to inspect the motor vehicle as part of the settlement process. In that regard, I sent him a notice for the inspection of the vehicle. So in fact, in spite of all I said in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the “litigation” in this case consisted of the following: (1) The correspondence and emails of which I share with the Court in this Declaration; and (2) A formally noticed Vehicle Inspection, because that was the only way the Plaintiffs would allow us to inspect the vehicle. 16. On December 20, 2017, I again started working with Michael Mixer. I sent him a letter on December 20, 2017, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I”. We were going to great lengths to get the Plaintiff to produce the vehicle for inspection, all as part of the settlement process. 17. All of a sudden, in February of 2018, Mr. Mixer disappeared from the case and I started working with an attorney by the name of Hawk Barry in the Plaintiffs’ camp. I] sent him a letter on DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON 25'- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 February 19, 2018, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J”. In that letter, I was again reaching out to Mr. Barry, explaining the prior settlement discussions. In fact, the case had been settled, almost in its entirety, except for the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. In that letter, however, Roseville Toyota “offers the sum of $5,000.00 towards attorney’s fees and costs.” My client had increased its attorney fee offer from $1,500.00 to $5,000.00. We offered $5,000.00 given the fact that in Mr. Rosner’s letter of November 29, 2017, in which he admitted “The attorney’s fees need ‘auditing’ as it seems too high at this stage of the litigation.” So, with fees at $6,000.00 “too high”, to get the case settled, I offered attormey’s fees of $5,000.00. 18. On March 10, 2018, Hawk Barry sent me an email. He apologize for his delay in responding to my February 20, 2018 letter. A copy of that email is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K”. The Plaintiffs’ camp was refusing the simple suggestion of a mileage off-set for their use of the vehicle. All of a sudden, the attorney’s fees had jumped to $12,000.00, when little work had been done in the case since Mr. Rosner’s letter to me of November 29, 2017 (Exhibit “G”) where he indicated “the bill I reviewed needs auditing, as it seems too high to me for this stage of litigation. Costs are $1,481.39. The fees are over $6,000.00, which I will reduce if your client a” simply agrees to rescission...”. So, all of a sudden, we see an increase of approximately $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees when the only work that had been done in the case had been letter writing and email sending by and between myself and the attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ camp. And, I had previously raised the attorney fee offer from $1,500.00 to $5,000.00 in response to Mr. Rosner’s suggestion that the $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees seemed “to be too high at that stage of the litigation. ” 19. On March 20, 2018, I sent another letter to Hawk Barry, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “L”. Again, we were offering full rescission of the Contract, reimbursement to the Plaintiffs of all payments made, including the payoff of the balance owed on DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -§- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 their loan. We wanted to inspect the vehicle. We previously offered $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees. But, I was asking Hawk Barry to please explain why, when the attorney’s fees sat $6,000.00 seemed. to be “too high”, they had now, in a very short period of time, doubled to the sum of $12,000.00. I specifically asked Hawk Barry “How can that possibly be?” Again, the case was settled but for the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. 20. On March 20, 2018, I received an email from Hawk Barry, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “M”. Now, all of a sudden, attorney’s fees and costs had jumped to $16,414,17. Attorney’s fees were $11,592.00 and costs in the sum of $1,917.00. He email somewhat contradicted the prior communications I had received from both he and Mr. Rosner. 21. On March 20, 2017, I responded to Hawk Barry with my email to him of 4:45 p.m. Again, I was asking for an explanation as to the great increase in attorney’s fees and costs. We were agreeing to waive the off-set for the use of the motor vehicle. And yes, we were willing to pay an additional fee of $159.59 for some of the costs incurred by the Plaintiffs. Again, the case was essentially settled but for the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. 22. On March 20, 2018, I sent an email to Hawk Barry of 5:53 p.m. Again, I was trying to understand why we were having so many problems with regard to the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. A copy of that email is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “O”. oO our 23, On March 21, 2018, Hawk Barry sent me an email in reply. A copy of that email is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “P”. 24. With Mr. Barry’s email of March 21, 2018, I decided then that it would be simply best to allow this Court to this Court to resolve the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. 25, In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, I made reference to the fact that the Plaintiffs’ camp spent 16 hours in drafting the Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ camp’s billing statement is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q” for the Court’s quick reference. I have yellow highlighted all of the hours spent by the Plaintiffs’ camp in drafting a Complaint that should have been relatively simple for the attorneys which such great experience that they share with us in DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -ae 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 22 24 25 26 their Declarations. I have marked with “x’s” those specific time entries for the time spent by the lawyers drafting the Complaint. If my arithmetic is correct, the total billed out by the Plaintiffs’ camp for the drafting of the Complaint is the sum of $7,834.00. 26. The Plaintiffs’ camp, in their moving papers, go to some length to talk about how they believe that my client, Roseville Toyota, might have been less than honest with the Plaintiffs in not disclosing the prior rental history of the vehicle. The truth of the matter is, however, that the prior rental history was disclosed as I indicated in some of my communications with the attorneys in the letters as set forth in this Declaration. I could share with the Court copies of documents showing that, but we are not here to “litigate” any of the issues set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. We are simply here to get the assistance of the Court to make a decision as to what “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs should be paid to the Plaintiffs’ camp. 27. Lalso see that as part of the Plaintiffs’ Cost Bill, they indicate the posting of jury fees in the sum of $150.00. It is my understanding, however, that the jury fees of $150.00 will be returned to the Plaintiffs’ camp if so requested. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on Hroanbere™ , 2018. C | / yy) 2] , foowy Tet /| | ety Vf ), iar -*TOHN A. BRITTON \ / X DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -8- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916)782-7560 Email: jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com JOHN A. BRITTON is a 1972 graduate of the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law and is also licensed to practice law in all of the state and federal courts in California. Mr. Britton was formerly employed as a litigation attorney with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles in Sacramento prosecuting automobile manufacturers, dealers, dismantlers and other related companies within the automobile industry. For the past 40 years, Mr. Britton has represented numerous business clients throughout California in federal courts, state courts, and before numerous administrative agencies. His practice has emphasized business defense litigation, employment defense litigation (wrongful termination, sexual harassment and various forms of discrimination), real estate, construction litigation including significant construction defect litigation, a wide variety of cases filed against clients in the automobile industry, and a variety of other litigation and transactional matters in representing clients in the construction industry and medical industry. Mr. Britton has been a member of the American Bar Association, California State Bar Association and the Bar Association of Sacramento County and Placer County. Mr. Britton has represented businesses throughout California and the Western United States in litigation and transactional matters. Litigation has been within the federal court and state court arena as well as within the administrative law arena. Litigation has included the defense of business clients in contract enforcement, antitrust and complex business litigation cases, unfair business practices, Lemon Law - warranty consumer lawsuits, real property disputes, construction cases including significant experience in representing clients in construction defect cases, employment cases involving unlawful termination, sexual harassment, various forms of discrimination, workers compensation, Americans with Disabilities Act and the like. Mr. Britton has represented clients in the automobile industry, medical industry, automotive service and repair industry, electronics industry, moving and storage industry, construction industry, aviation industry, agriculture equipment industry, food and grocery related industry, as well as the real estate development and real estate sales industry. The Law Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. has represented numerous businesses throughout Northern California, typical of which are the John L. Sullivan Automotive Group (John L. Sullivan Chevrolet - Roseville Toyota - Saturn of Roseville - John L. Sullivan Dodge - John L, Sullivan KIA); the James Ford, Inc., Automotive Group; Future Ford and Future Nissan; Gordon Turner Motors, Inc. - Turner Nissan and Turner Volvo; Sanborn Chevrolet; Auburn Honda; Auburn Nissan; Magnussen’s Auburn Toyota; Magnussen Toyota of Palo Alto; Motherlode Motors; Roseville Mitsubishi; Sacramento City Mitsubishi; Vacaville Volkswagen; Vacaville Honda; San Leandro Honda; Shingle Springs Honda; Andrews Lincoln-Mercury; Yuba City Toyota Scion; Snider Leasing-Sacramento Leasing and other vehicle and equipment leasing companies throughout California; Symbolic Motor Car Company; Ferrari of Los Gatos; Bentley of San Diego; Lamborghini of San Diego; Bugatti of San Diego; Barnum & Celillo Electric, Inc.; D & S Movers, Inc., a subsidiary of Allied Van Lines Moving and Storage Company; Smorgabob’s Restaurants; Pacific Staffing; Jennings & Julien Construction, Inc.; River City Pharmacy, Inc. dba Option Care; Northeast Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Group; Industrial Credit Company, an equipment leasing company; DJD Development and Engineering, a real estate development and civil engineering company; MacFarlane Enterprises, an electronics company; Metropolitan Pain Management, a Sacramento medical group specializing in pain management, and American River Packaging, a Sacramento-based manufacturing company. (A more detailed list of clients may be provided upon request, subject to client approval.) EXHIBIT “B’ LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95664 Ph:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritten@JBrittonLaw.com September 18, 2017 Michael Mixer ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Filimon v. Roseville Toyota SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION Dear Mr. Mixer: My office represents the Defendants Roseville Toyota and RLI Insurance Company in the above action. By now, you should have received your copy of the Answer that we filed on behalf of these Defendants. I am sending this letter to you because you apparently the attorney who filed the Complaint on behalf of the Plaintiffs. I have represented Roseville Toyota for well over 30 years. I represent numerous automobile dealers throughout California. I have worked with many of the fine attorneys at your office for several years. As such, I wanted to take this opportunity to reach out to you for settlement discussions. Maybe we can work together to resolve this case in the not too distant future. The main point to the case that you filed on behalf of your clients appears to be the fact that they believe they purchased a motor vehicle that was a prior daily rental without that fact being disclosed to them. Your clients also seem to indicate that they did not understand the various products that they were purchasing along with the purchase of this motor vehicle, They seemed fo indicate that they did not understand the terms of the Contract. Yet, the fact of the matter rip is that they did sign the Contract. You and I both know that in California, when someone signs’a Contract, it is assumed that they understood the terms of the Contract they were signing. Yet, again, we go back to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint in which the Plaintiffs allege “Plaintiffs subsequently learned that the vehicle had originally been registered by Enterprise as a rental vehicle and purchased by Toyota with Toyota FS as prior lien holder”. Page 2 While Plaintiffs make these allegations, there is, at least, one document in the dealer jacket that indicates just the opposite. I enclose a copy of the four-page CarFax. Within this document, you will see numerous references to the fact that this vehicle was a rental or prior daily rental. This is especially true with respect to page 4 of the document where just above the signature of one of your clients, it specifically states “Rental” and “Vehicle was registered by a rental agency”. - Tam not here to litigate this case in letter form. I have too much respect for your law firm to try to do that. I am here, however, to try to indicate that there are “two sides to the story”. For purposes of settlement, I have authority from my client to recommend/offer the following. 1. Your clients will make arrangements to have the vehicle brought to Roseville Toyota for a full and complete inspection. Upon inspection, if there is not any unusual wear, tear or mileage, then we can move on to step two of our settlement proposal, 2. We work towards a rescission of the Contract with the vehicle being returned to Roseville Toyota. 3. We understand, at the present time, there is a balance left owed on your clients’ loan in the sum of $11,332.52. That number can be reduced, however. Roseville Toyota is willing to take out of the original Sales Contract certain after-market products purchased by your client and deduct those amounts owed from the amount of the Contract. That would reduce the amount left owed on the loan. 4, The items to be taken out of the Contract would be: Tracker $139.00 LoJack $695.00 Service Contract $2,495.00 Express Systems, Inc. $595.00 Tire/Wheel Protection $675.00 With the redaction of these items from the Contract, that would reduce the balance left owed on your clients’ loan. That balance would be assumed and paid off by Roseville Toyota, 5. There would be no reimbursement to your clients for loan payments made on their loan. Since the date of the transaction, well over a year ago, your clients have had the full use and enjoyment of the motor vehicle. ~ 6. $1,500.00 would be paid towards their attorney’s fees and costs. Page re Please discuss our settlement offer with your clients. I will keep this settlement offer on the table for two weeks. Then, I will initiate my first round of written discovery. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you very much. OHN A. BRITTON JAB:jt ce: Client EXHIBIT “C Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP’s ~AUTS- FRAU aS 3 mee Because nobody should be cheated, ee 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92131, Tel (858) 348-1005, (800) 466-5366, EAX (858) 348-1150 September 26, 2017 John A. Britton, Esq. Law Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Britton: Thank you for your gracious correspondence of September 11, 2017 enclosing the Carfax report and offer of settlement. I too do not wish to attempt to argue the case via correspondence.and realize that your client may have another side to the story. _ You are correct in stating that the gravamen of my clients’ complaint is that they were not informed of the prior rental status of the purchased vehicle. Prior rental use was a very important consideration for my clients when shopping for a vehicle and their position is that they were repeatedly expressly told that the vehicle had not been used as a rental. They definitely would not haus purchased the vehicle in question had they known about its prior rental use. I appreciate your sincere efforts to reach out and resolve this matter at an early stage, as do my clients, but they had several questions which I could not answer and I must ask you for clarification of your offer. My clients were concerned that it appears from your offer that they would not be getting all their money back from the purchase of the vehicle. I don’t want to argue but my clients have not had the vehicle for well over a year: The purchase occurred in December of last year so they have probably made eight or nine payments, excluding the down payment(s) and it would seem that they should be entitled to the return of these payments. A reasonable mileage offset for use of the vehicle is of course negotiable. Your offer does not specifically address the down payment(s) made by my clients for the vehicle and this too requires clarification. I am also somewhat confused by the discussion under headings 3 and 4 where certain line items are to be taken out of the contract and seek clarification as to whether my clients are in any way required to pay for these items. . __. Ifsome of my assumptions are correct, it appears that our respective clients’ settlement positions are not tremendously far off and I am hopeful that we-can keep a settlement dialogue open in an effort to resolve this matter prior to incurring additional fees and costs thereby. making settlement more difficult. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP www.autofraudlegalcenter.com John A. Britton, Esq. Re: _Filimon v. Roseville Toyota September 26, 2017 Page 2 I await your response clarifying your offer and would be more than happy to discuss the matter more fully with you in hope of reaching a settlement. alle) MEE Michael J. Mixer EXHIBIT “D’ _ ~ LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Joritton@JBrittonLaw.com November 2, 2017 Michael J. Mixer Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Mixer: Lets follow-up on our settlement discussions in my letter to you of September 18, 2017 and your letter in reply of September 26, 2017. Yes, I forgot to mention the down payment in my letter. That down payment will be part of the settlement package. Let me go back and lay it all out again: ~ 1. Your clients will make arrangements to have the vehicle brought to Roseville Toyota for a full and complete inspection. Upon inspection, if there is not any unusual wear, tear or mileage, then we will move on with the settlement. 2. We work towards rescission of the contract with the vehicle being returned to Roseville Toyota. 3. My clients will pay off the balance owed on the loan. Can you get me that loan balance as of now please? 4. My client will refund to your clients the $4,000.00 down payment. 5. There will be no reimbursement to your clients for loan payments made on their loan. Since the date of the transaction, your clients have had the full use and enjoyment of the motor vehicle. You are correct, the transaction did not take place “well over a year ago”. 6. $1,500.00 will be paid toward attorney’s fees and costs occurred by your clients. Page 2 This seems to be a very straightforward matter. Please discuss our proposal with your client and get back to me at your earliest convenience. Let’ s both agree to hold off on any formal discovery for at least the next thirty days to see if reasonable minds can prevail and we can get this case soon settled. Thank you for your attention in these matters. . he yours, HN A. BRITTON JAB: jt ce: Client” ee EXHIBIT “E’ _, Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP’s AUT FRAUD _CeEr Tae =e ” ‘Samer wokelly should be cheated. ™ 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92131, Tel (858) 348-1005, (800) 466-5366, FAX (858) 348-1150 h e November 10, 2017 John A. Britton, Esq. Law Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 4oo Roseville, CA 95661 Re: _‘Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Britton: Iran your letter dated November 2, 2017 by Mr. Rosner and he does not feel that it is in good faith and does not constitute an offer. Our clients are also displeased. We will be serving a CCP 998 offer. Very truly yom Vil Lt =“yftthOG™ LE J. Mixer Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP www.autofraudlegalcenter.com EXHIBIT “F’ LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritton@JBrittonLaw.com - November 22, 2017 Michael Mixer ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Mixer: I have your letter of November 10, 2017 and all three 998's as enclosed. I send this letter to both you and Mr. Rosner given the fact that you apparently have to run everything by Mr. Rosner, seeking his approval. Let me be very straight-forward and to the point. This is not your first rodeo. This is not the first rodeo for Mr. Rosner. This is not the first rodeo for my client and I. We have all competed in other rodeos, like the Van Dorpe case. There will be more rodeos in the future. I go back to my letter to you of November 2, 2017. With that letter, it appeared to both my client and I that you and I were close to settling this case. But what happens next? We get your . letter/package of November 10, 2017. Many could see that letter/package as nothing more thas “bully tactics”, unnecessary saber rattling, and in many respects, “make work” to simply run up the attorney’s fees and costs in a case that we thought was so close to getting settled. Mr. Mixer, why the letter/package of November 10, 2017 when clearly it was not necessary? = _ We go back again to my letter to you of November 2, 2017, a copy of which is enclosed for quick reference. We also enclose another copy of the CarFax in this case. Your client’s chief complaint as stated by you is that he was never told that the vehicle was a prior daily rental. Yet, the CarFax Vehicle History Report, as enclosed, was signed by your client on December 8, 2016 and 4 anal Nee Page 2 not far above his signature on the section entitled “Rental”, clearly, your client knew and understood that the vehicle he was purchasing was registered by a rental agency. Yes, we have reviewed the several 998 Offers to Settle. They are essentially the same offer to each of the Defendants, but each written in slightly different form. Do you really want to spend additional time with attorney’s fees and costs in the filing of a motion to determine reasonable attorney’s fees when this is something that reasonable cowboys in this rodeo should be able to settle without the necessity of incurring further attorney’s fees and costs. We go back again and try to work with you with respect to a reasonable settlement: 1. Your clients will make arrangements to have the vehicle brought to Roseville Toyota for a full and complete inspection. Upon inspection, if there is not any unusual wear, tear, or mileage, then we will move on with the settlement. . 2. There will be rescission of the Contract with the vehicle being returned to Roseville Toyota. However, it will be conditional based upon the inspection of the vehicle. 3. Roseville Toyota will pay off the balance owed on your clients’ loan. Again, we ask that you get us that loan balance. 4. My client will refund to your clients the $4,000.00 down payment. 5. As to reimbursement to your clients for all loan payments made on their loan, that question remains at issue. We can have further discussion in that regard just as soon as the vehicle is inspected. We have every right to inspect the vehicle as to unusual wear, tear and mileage. The issue of mileage with respect to reimbursement of payments on the loan is, naturally, closely associated with each other. Once the vehicle is inspected, we can talk more about reimbursement of loan payments. 6. We previously offered $1,500.00 to be paid toward attorney’s fees and costs incurred by your clients. With the filing of the lawsuit and no discovery initiated by and between the parties, how much in attorney’s fees and costs have your clients really incurred, even with your office? What are the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by your client? Please give us that figure and please explain the same. While you indicate that Mr. Rosner said he does not feel that our prior settlement offer was made in good faith and does not constitute an offer, maybe Mr. Rosner would like to read, quite possibly for the first time, my letter to you of November 2, 2017 and the prior letters between you and I. You indicate that your clients are also “displeased”. So, also is my client“displeased”. Let’s continue to work together so that we can satisfy the displeasure of each of our clients. The documents from the Dealer Jacket indicate that your clients clearly knew and understood that the vehicle was a prior daily rental. “ae” Page 3 We would hope to continue on with these discussions with every expectation that reasonable minds will prevail. We hope to be able to close out this “rodeo” in the not too distant future. We look forward to your reply. Thank you very much. truly yours, (WAS AE DHN A. BRITTON JAB: jt Enclosures ce: Client (via email) EXHIBIT “G’ ._ Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP’s AUT® FRAUD Because nobody should be cheated. ™ 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92131, Tel (858) 348-1005, (800) 466-5366, FAX (858) 348-1150 November 29, 2017 Via E-Mail & U.S, Mail jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com John A, Britton, Esq. Law Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400 Roseville, CA 95661 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Britton: As you copied me on your letter, I am responding. To be-blunt, thé problem with resolving cases with your firm is you. You play games, low ball settlements and make it very difficult to work with. _- Tread your letter afler getting off the phone with John Bronstein, who is with one ot the most prominent.firms defending these cases. He just called me and we were settied in 15. minutes. _ You like to write posturing letters that do nothing to advance settlement, but seem to be written to impress your clients. _ FT stand by my terms for settlement and will resolve the case as to all defendasts for rescission. You can. inspect the vehicle on the scheduled return date with an option to reject it.” I am not giving your client an unsupervised extra inspection, but if need be, will make the vehicle available for all parties as a noticed inspection. _. The bill T reviewed needs auditing, as it seems too high to me for this stage of the litigation. Costs are $1,481.39. ‘he fees are over $6,000.00, which I will reduce if your client simply agrees to rescission or, a judge can always set our fees:and costs. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP www.autofraudlegalcenter.com New” John A. Britton, Esq. November 29, 2017 Page 2 You are right, this does not. need to be this difficult, we have resolved many hundreds of cases this year with other firms. Be advised, we will not agree to any form of confidentiality as your client’s business practices for disclosure of rental vehicles is blatantly illegal. We prefer to exchange payment for a dismissal with prejudice as that is less expensive. Yours very truly, Hallen D. Rosner HDR/lee EXHIBIT “H’ LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritton@JBrittonLaw.com December 4, 2017 Hal Rosner Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mr. Rosner: Thank you for your letter of November 29, 2017. Let’s set aside the verbal fisticuffs so that we can try to continue to work together to see if we can get this case settled in the not too distant future. Congratulations on getting your case settled with John Bronstein. Bravo! My prior correspondence to your associate attorney has not been for the purpose of “posturing”. I was simply trying to work with him to get this case settled. My letters are not written to impress my clients. I have been representing this automobile group for 35 years. My relationship with this group is such that this group does not need letters from me to impress them. Thave reviewed again my prior correspondence written to your associate. The entire settlement hinges very much on inspecting the Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Once that vehicle is inspected, we can then again discuss reimbursement of monthly loan payments. I was hoping that we could arrange for such an inspection without the need for a formal noticed inspection. You fear for having to produce the vehicle for inspection on two occasions. I can understand that. Enclosed please find the Defendant’s formal Notice for the Plaintiffs to produce their vehicle for inspection at Roseville Toyota. Ifthe time and date is not convenient for the Plaintiffs, please let me know. I will be happy to work with you to schedule the inspection to a mutually convenient time for all. You indicate my letters have done nothing to advance settlement. Pardon me? Go back again and look at prior correspondence to your associate. Settlement has been “advanced”, but for a few remaining issues. If we revisit my prior correspondence to your associate, we again emphasize the following: Page 2 1. We believe that the Plaintiffs’ case is by far a “slam dunk”. We have the Plaintiff's signature on a CarFax that clearly disclosed that the vehicle was a prior daily rental. 2. We have offered to reimburse the Plaintiffs the down payment in the sum of $4,000.00. 3. We leave open the reimbursement of monthly payments on the loan dependent upon the results of the vehicle inspection. 4. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs have always been entertained. You indicate that the current fees and costs as stated in your November 29, 2017 letter “seems too high” for you at this stage of the litigation. Naturally, we agree. You indicate that you are willing to reduce the fees and costs if we can agree on the other portions of our settlement proposal. Let me know what those fees and costs would be if we can get this case settled in the not too distant future after we inspect the vehicle. You indicate that you will not agree to any form of confidentiality because my client’s “business practices for disclosure of rental vehicles is blatently illegal”? Says you only, Mr. Rosner. Again, we have your client’s signature on the rental car disclosure. More than that, however, was it really necessary to end your last letter with unnecessary saber-rattling? Again, to use your verbiage, such silly saber-rattling “does nothing to advance settlement”. We look forward to the Plaintiffs producing the motor vehicle for inspection as set forth within the enclosed Notice. Thank you for your attention to these matters. JAB; jt Enclosure cc: Client (via email) EXHIBIT “?P? Neer SSA LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(916) 781-2060 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritton@JBrittonLaw.com December 20, 2017 (Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail) Michael Mixer ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Mike: I want to follow up on a telephone conversation we had late afternoon a few days ago. We were talking about the vehicle inspection that we have scheduled to take place at Roseville Toyota on January 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. You indicated that Mrs. Filimon needs the vehicle to travel to and from work. You suggested that Mrs. Filimon take the vehicle to work and that someone from Roseville Toyota meet at her at her work, pick up the vehicle, then take it to Roseville Toyota for inspection. The vehicle will be inspected and then returned to Mrs. Filimon at her workplace. I have discussed the matter with my client. Regretfully, we cannot go along with your suggestion. For purposes of liability, we would rather have Mrs. Filimon deliver the vehicle directly to Roseville Toyota. My client will put her in a rental vehicle free of charge. Her vehicle will be inspected. When the inspection is completed, a representative of Roseville Toyota will contact Mrs. Filimon at work, She can drive the rental vehicle back to Roseville Toyota and then pick up her vehicle. Again, the rental vehicle will be free of charge. Please discuss this matter with your client and let me know if it meets with her approval. If the matter meets with Mrs. Filimon’s approval, then when she arrives at Roseville Toyota for the inspection on January 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., I will get her the name of the individual at Roseville Toyota with whom she can meet to pick up her rental vehicle. Let’s get the mechanics of this situation worked out first before I give you that person’s name. Page 2 Get back to me as soon as you can so we can get the vehicle inspection well in hand. Thank you, Mike. Ver-truly yours, ae ALK. bans ID) 4N A. BRITTON JAB :jt ce: Client (via email) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Ph:(918) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritton@JBrittonLaw.com February 19, 2018 Hawk Barry, Esq. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Hawk: I want to follow up on my email to you of F ebruary 14, 2018. The vehicle inspection on that Saturday morning went well. Before you joined us in this case I was working with Michael Mixer. We were close to getting this case settled but for the issue of reimbursement for use and the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. Now that the inspection has been completed, I am authorized to extend the following settlement offer: le The vehicle has been inspected for its mileage use and wear and tear. The settlement offer will be subject to your clients final turn over of the vehicle with every hope and expectation that the wear and tear and mileage will not be significantly different than the wear and tear and mileage when the vehicle was last inspected a few Saturdays ago at Roseville Toyota. 2. Reseission of the contract. 3. Roseville Toyota will assume responsibility for the loan payoff. Your clients will return the motor vehicle to Roseville Toyota with the conditions as referenced above. 4. The $4,000.00 down payment will be returned to your clients. 5. When your clients purchased the motor vehicle, there were 72,778 miles on the odometer. When the vehicle Was inspected a few Saturdays ago, there were 89,418 miles on the odometer. Your clients have had the full use and enjoyment of the vehicle to the tune of 16,640 miles: Roseville Toyota believes that there should be some off-set for your clients use of the vehicle. Page 2 6. Your clients have made (14) fourteen payments on the motor vehicle and they made the February payment. Each monthly payment is in the sum of $185.81. That is total monthly payments in the sum of $2,601.34. For the use of the motor vehicle, Roseville Toyota suggests that the “difference” of the $2,601.34 be split equally by and between the parties for your clients use of the motor vehicle. Roseville Toyota will give it self a set-off $1,300.67 for the use of the vehicle. That use represents the extraordinarily reasonable sum of .8 cents per mile! 7. In November of last year, Mr. Rosner stepped into this case briefly. He indicated he had reviewed the attorney’s fees which need “auditing, as it seems to high at this stage of the litigation”. He further indicated costs of $1,481.39. He indicated “the fees are over $6,000.00, which I will reduce if your client’s simply agrees to rescission....”. With that in mind, and to get this case settled, Roseville Toyota offers the sum of $5,000.00 towards attorney’s fees and costs. Hawk, we believe that this offer is more than fair and reasonable. Not to try and litigate this case in letter form again however, but we briefly go back again to the substance of your clients case. They believe they were not told that the vehicle was a prior daily rental. And while it is true that on one of the forms signed by your clients there were no indication that the vehicle was in fact a “prior daily rental”, your clients did sign a car fax which clearly indicated that the vehicle was in fact a “prior daily rental”. Please discuss our offer with your clients and get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for your attention to these matters. Thank you. ly yours, (Gg IN A. BRITTON JAB:sv ce: Client EXHIBIT “Kk? John Britton -- From: Hawk Barry Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 5:23 PM To: John Britton Subject: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota John -| apologize for the delay in responding to your February 20 letter. My clients rejected the offer, They will not agree to a mileage offset. They have authorized a counter of full rescission - return of their $4000 down payment and 14 payments of $200/month for a total of $6800. It also appears they paid $159.59 to fix the drive belts, which they would like reimbursement for. Dealer will take car back and pay off remainder of the contract. Our demand for fees and costs is $12,000, or we would agree to a motion for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party on all causes of action. Thanks. Hawk Hawk Barry ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92131 Phone: 858-348-1005 ext. 124 Mobile: 619-218-2126 Fax: 858-348-1150 hawk@rbblawgroup.com www.autofraudlegalcenter.com For the latest news on our law firm, cases, and vehicle recalls follow our blog at www.autofraudlegalcenter.com/blog EXHIBIT “L’ a LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400, Roseville, CA 95661 Fh:(916) 781-2050 Fax (916) 782-7560 E-mail: Jbritton@JBrittonLaw.com March 20, 2018 (Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail) Hawk Barry Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92131 Re: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Dear Hawk: T have your email of March 10, 2018 which has been discussed with representatives of Roseville Toyota. We want to continue to try to work with you to get this case totally resolved without the necessity of either side having to incur further attorney's fees and costs, That said, however, we have some questions, if not confusion, with respect to you March 10, 2018 email. After the inspection of the vehicle, we learned that your clients had used the vehicle to the extent of 16,640 miles in a relatively short period of time. We thought an offset for use of the vehicle in the sum of $1,367,00 was more than reasonable. This is an offset that came in at the extraordinarily reasonable sum of $.08 per mile. You have now rejected any suggestion that an offset is reasonable, even thought the law would allow the same, You now come up with something new, namely, the sum of $159.59 to “fix the drive belts”. Yet, you include no documentation to substantiate the same. We also wonder why it is that any such expense would not be covered under any service contract or might it be that is simply a maintenance item that your clients would be obligated to pay? Nevertheless, for the sake of settlement, we would agree to pay the $159.59, The remaining issue is of great concern, These cases always boil down to the issue of attorney's fees and costs for the lawyers. Page 2 Your demand for fees and costs is now in the sum of $12,000,00. Hawk, how can that possibly be? I enclose another copy of Hallen D. Rosner’s letter to me of November 29, 2017. In that letter, he states: “The bill [reviewed needs auditing, as it seems too high to me for this state of litigation. Costs are $1,481.39. The fees are over $6,000.00, which I will reduce if your client simply agrees to rescission, or a Judge can always set our fees and casts.” Hawk, how is it in that just three months’ time, when no work has becn done in this case, no written discovery, no depositions and just a few letters and emails between our offices, that fecs that seemed “too high” of $6,000.00 have now doubled to the sum of $12,000.00? How can that possibly be? Hawk, this case is settled but for the issue of attorney's fecs and costs. Reasonable minds need to prevail with respect to this issue of “fees and costs is $12,000.00". T go back to my letter to you of February 19, 2018. Let’s get this case done now. We offer the following: 1. Full and complete rescission of the Contract. 2. Rescission would naturally include reimbursement to your clients as to all payments made on the Sales Contract. Roseville Toyota will pay off the balance owed on your clients’ loan. 3, The vehicle will be returned to Roseville Toyota. Your clients will contact Tony Bernasconi, the Sales Manager. His direct telephone number is (916) 257-4100, The vehicle wili again be inspected for any unusual wear, tear or mileage since the date of the last inspection at Roseville Toyota. There will be documents will have to sign, They will meet with Mr. Bernasconi and make arrangements for those documents to be signed, with the vehicle to be inspected at the same time. At that mecting, Mr, Bernasconi can hand your clients a check reimbursing them for all payments made on the Contract. Please give us the exact amount of the reimbursement money as you calculate it to be with the date of the last payment your clients made on their loan, 4. My client will pay off the balance on your clients’ loan with proof of that payoff on the loan balance to be supplied to you through my office as soon as it is done. 5. As to the issue of atlorney’s fees and costs, we again go back to our offer in the sum of $5,000.00. Naturally, if you can explain to us how fees and costs as reflected in Mr. Rosner’s letter of November 29, 2017 that “seemed too high” at that stage of the litigation are now in the sum of $12,000.00, we would appreciate some explanation regarding the same. Please give us a breakdown See Page 3 between actual costs incurred and attorney’s fees incurred. Nothing fancy, Hawk. Just give us something to respond to our concerns, Again, let’s continue to work together to try to get this matter settled and done without the necessity of either side having to incur further attorney’s fees and costs. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your attention to these matters. truly yours, JOHN A. BRITTON JAB: jt ce: Client (via email) EXHIBIT “M?’ John Britton From: Hawk Barry Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:36 PM To: John Britton Subject: FW: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Attachments: KMBT36220180320104513.pdf John - couple of questions so | can clearly communicate the offer to my clients. 1 -is your client agreeing to waive its prior request for an offset? 2-is your client agreeing to pay the $159.59? They are addressed in the first page of your letter, but then it is unclear to me from the offer on page 2 whether this is the case. Here is the breakdown of our fees and costs: Adriana Gutierrez 0.4 hours x $320/hour = $128 Me 3.0 hours x $590/hour = $1,770 Hal 1.6 hours x $640/hour = $1,024 Mike Mixer 25.2 hours x $460/hour = $11,592 Total fees = $14,514 Costs = $1900.17 Total fees and costs = $16,414.17 Since your client turned down my offer of reduced fees and costs, I’m not willing to reduce them anymore. So for fees and costs, why don’t we just file a motion as prevailing party and let the judge decide? Thanks. Hawk EXHIBIT “N’ Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:56 PM To: Hawk Barry Subject: RE: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Hawk- Thank you. However, please answer my primary question-How did the fees get from a “High” of $6000.00 as in Mr. Rosner’s letter to me of Nov. 29, where he agreed to reduce them then if we agreed to rescission (which we have agreed to do) to the $12,000 as in your last emai!. And now to the $14,000.00 as below, when little or no work has been done in the case during the in between? Again, we have Mr. Rosner’s words that have has confused with the claim for fees now more than doubled. How so Hawk? Please explain. And what about Mr. Rosner’s telling us that hew would even reduce the $6000.00 if we agreed to the rescission, which was essentially agreed to a long time ago but for the inspection? Also, the “costs” of $1900.17? Please explain and elaborate as we asked for this before. As for your questions” (1) Waive the “offset”? Yes. (2) The $159.59? Pay it? Read the letter that you attach as the answer is clearly in there. YES. We see no reason just yet to spend time and money with the court if you can answer some simple questions, and then reasonable minds can prevail. Let’s talk more. Thanks. JB ohn A. Britton aw Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. 478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400 toseville, CA 95661 716) 781-2050 716) 782-7560 FAX Britton@JBnttonLaw.com JSIOI OR AR RSC I GR AOR ACR RIC ICCA A 216 I C2 sok ok A] ACCS ARCA fe aE oo ea aA fc aka aaa af ofc a af ef a fe ae ae ae ake ak ae ak ak ic ak ak ak ak ak Subject: RE: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota Please show me anywhere where he told me he was willing to take $5000.00 at that time. Please show me that in any form of written communication Hawk. Please. Thank you. JB John A. Britton Law Offices of John A. Britton, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 781-2050 (916) 782-7560 FAX IBritton@JBrittonLaw.com Sf of fe eae ok ae Re EA A fe ake ee af ae a ae a ae ok fe af ae as ae a ae ae se afc ae oe fe ae oe of ae se fs as fe sk of ae ae fe ake fe af 2h aft ofc as ok ae oe as of ako aoe oc ae ake ae 2 eo ot os ae a a os coe ot ae oi ae a ake fe 2 of gf fe ae af aso 2 fe ofc ok oe oe 2 ae oe se abc oe fc as oe os CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is confidential and privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee. Disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking action in reliance upon this transmission by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Any inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive any privilege that applies to this teansmission. If you receive this transmission in error, please permanently delete the original and any copy and contact the sender at the Internet address above, or by telephone at (916) 781-2050. Thank you. EXHIBIT “P’ 10) 1] 12 13 14 ia l 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 their loan. We wanted to inspect the vehicle. We previously offered $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees. But, I was asking Hawk Barry to please explain why, when the attorney’s fees sat $6,000.00 seemed to be “too high”, they had now, in a very short period of time, doubled to the sum of $12,000.00. I specifically asked Hawk Barry “How can that possibly be?” Again, the case was settled but for the issue of attorneys fees and costs. © On March 20, 2018, I received an email from Hawk Barry, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “M”. Now, all of a sudden, attorney’s fees and costs had jumped to $16,414,17. Attorney’s fees were $11,592.00 and costs in the sum of $1,917.00. He email somewhat conjradicted the prior communications I had received from both he and Mr. Rosner. . On March 20, 2017, I responded to Hawk Barry with my email to him of 4:45 p.m. Again, I was asking for an explanation as to the great increase in attorney’s fees and costs. We were agreeing to waive the off-set for the use of the motor vehicle. And yes, we were willing to pay an additional fee of $159.59 for some of the costs incurred by the Plaintiffs. Again, the case was essentially settled-but for the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. 22¢ On March 20, 2018, I sent an email to Hawk Barry of 5:53 p.m. Again, I was trying to understand why we were having so many problems with regard to the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. A copy-of that email is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “O”. has March 21, 2018, Hawk Barry sent me an email in reply. A copy of that email is attached herez6 and marked as Exhibit “P”’. 24. With Mr. Barry’s email of March 21, 2018, I decided then that it would be simply best to allow this Court to this Court to resolve the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. 25. In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, | made reference to the fact that the Plaintiffs’ camp spent 16 hours in drafting the Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ camp’s billing statement is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q” for the Court’s quick reference. I have yellow highlighted all of the hours spent by the Plaintiffs’ camp in drafting a Complaint that should have been relatively simple for the attorneys which such great experience that they share with us in DECLARATION OF JOHN A. BRITTON -7- ye - John Britton From: Hawk Barry Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:26 PM To: John Britton Subject: RE: Filimon v. Roseville Toyota He didn’t tell you he would take $5,000 at that time. He told you the fees were over $6,000 and he would reduce them if your client “simply agrees to rescission.” Your client didn’t simply agree to rescission . So the number he was willing to accept at that time doesn’t matter now. Let me know what your client wants to do now. Thanks. Hawk RBB BILLING Date | Name | Notes Duration| Rate Total 02/06/2017) Adriana Gutierrez-Herrera |Interviewed client 0.30] $ 305.00 | $ 91.50 02/06/2017 |Adriana Gutierrez-Herrera_|Reviewed email from client re case issues 0.10} $ 305.00 | $ 30.50 02/08/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with Client 0.50] $ 460.00 | $ 230.00 02/08/2017) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client 0.30} $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 02/09/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to Client 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 02/09/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 02/09/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client 0.30] $ 460.00} $ 138.00 02/10/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to Client 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 02/10/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client and run Autocheck and Carafax report 0.50| $ 460.00 | $ 230.00 02/10/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 02/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with Client 0.40| $460.00 | $ 184.00 02/16/2017|Michael J Mixer research re prior ownership history 0.30] $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 02/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of DMV title history 0.60} $ 460.00 | $ 276.00 02/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from Client re electrical recall 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 02/22/2017 |Michael J Mixer telephone conference with Client 0.10} $460.00 | 5 46.00 03/03/2017| Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re status 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 03/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from clinet and preparation of response 9.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 03/07/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client and preparation of response 0.20] $ 460.00 | S 92.00 03/13/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from DMV re ownership history 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 03/14/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re transaction documentation 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 03/14/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re disclosures 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 03/15/2017) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client: 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 03/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 03/20/2017 | Christopher P. Barry review documents from DMV 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/20/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.30) $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 03/22/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of retainer package and correspondence to client 0.30] $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 03/22/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re retention 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 03/22/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re retention 0.10| $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 04/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of client original documents 0.60] $ 460.00 |$ 276.00 04/06/2017 | Michael J Mixér telephone conference with DMV Licensing re bond information 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 04/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re car payments 0.20] $460.00 |$ 92.00 04/24/2017|Michael J Mixer research re defendant license status 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 04/24/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with DMV re dealer bond information 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 04/24/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze client email re sales transaction and analysis re complaint 0.60! $ 460.00 | $ 276.00 04/24/2017| Michael J Mixer begin preparation of complaint e 2.30} $ 460.00 | $ -1,058.00 04/25/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of corr client re disclosures 0.30| $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 04/25/2017| Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents re sales transaction 0.30} $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 04/25/2017 | Michael J Mixer continued preparation of complaint 1.20] $ 460.00 | $552.00 Page 1of7 RBB BILLING Date N a m e Notes Duration; Rate Total 04/25/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re purchase 0.301 $ 460.00} $ 138.00 04/25/2017| Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re purchase 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 04/26/2017|Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re facts of case and review with previous 0.30} $ 460.00; $ 138.00 04/28/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of complaint 0.40| $ 460.00} $ 184.00 05/02/2017 /|Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re complaint 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 05/02/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re complaint 0.10} $ 460.00 /$ 46.00 05/02/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revised complaint 0.70} $ 460.00} 5 322.00 ir 05/03/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revisions to complaint 2 . 3 0 ] $ 460.00 | $ 1,058.00 05/03/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents re incorporation in complaint 0.60} $ 460.00} $ 276.00 05/04/2017!Michael J Mixer telephone conference with client re revised complaint 0.20! $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 05/04/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of continued revisions to complaint . 0.40] $ 460.00 | $ 184.00 ; ~ 05/04/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re repairs 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 05/04/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of pictures and correspondence from client re airbag issue _ _ _ 0.20; $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 05/04/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to clients re revised complaint 0.20| $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 05/05/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re additional facts 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00_ 05/12/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client and revise complaint 0.60} $ 460.00 | $ 276.00, 09/16/2017 | Christopher P. Barry revise complaint _ _ 0.20 $ 590.00 | $ 118.00 w w 06/01/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revised complaint 0.40; $ 460.00! 184.00 ~ 06/12/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with client re travel 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 06/13/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.20] $ 460.00|$ 92.00 06/13/2017 |Michael J Mixer |preparation of correspondence to client re contact information 0.10] $ 460.00;$ 46.00 06/13/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re additional documents 0.20| $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 06/14/2017, Michael J Mixer preparation of revised complaint 2.20| $ 460.00 | $ 1,012.00 she 06/14/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re second contract 0.20| $ 460.00 |$ 92.00 06/14/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze complaint per correspondence from client = 0.40} $ 460.00} $ 184.00 Z z 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 7 ! Hal D. Rosner review and revise complaint 0.50; $ 6 4 0 . 0 0 / $ 320.00} - 06/20/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze complaint re preparation of revisions 0.30] $460.00 | $ 138.00 | 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re status 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer research re venue 0.301 $ 460.00 ;$ 138.00 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revised complaint 3.10) $ 460.00 | $§ 1,426.00 m 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of clra letter 0.40) $ 460.00 | $ 184.00 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer research re proper party for TFS 0.30] $ 460.00; $ 138.00 06/26/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents re calculation of damages 0.40) $ 460.00|$ 184.00 07/03/2017) Hal D. Rosner review and revise complaint 0.20; $ 640.00} $ 128.00 he 07/03/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revised complaint 0.20| $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 | \ 07/05/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze complaint re revisions 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 | 07/06/2017 |Michaet J Mixer ‘preparation of revised compliant 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 | x 07/07/2017 | Michael J Mixer [preparation of revisions to complaint 0.80] $ 460.00! $ 368.00 | SK Page 2 o f 7 RBB BILLING Date N a m e Notes Duration Rate Total 07/27/2017'| Michael J Mixer review and analyze correspondence from client re pleadings 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 08/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer research status and ownership re service on defendant 0.70| $ 460.00} $ 322.00 08/21/2017 |Michael J Mixer review and analyze proper holder party name 0.30} $ 460.00|$ 138.00 08/21/2017)| Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from service c o m p a n y re acceptance of service 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 08/23/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with court clerk re amandment 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 08/23/2017 | Michael J Mixer. research Placer locai rules re amendments 0.30] $ 460.00} 138.00 08/23/2017! Michael J Mixer preparation of amendment to complaint 0.30} $ 460.00; $ 138.00 S e 09/12/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze status re a m e n d m e n t to complaint and service 0.20! $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/13/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze status re T M C C service 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 | 09/13/2017} Michael J Mixer preparation of revision to complaint re service 0.20| $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 TF> 09/13/2017 |Michael J Mixer research re service on T M C C 0.20| $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/13/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze correspondence from defense counsel re settlement 0.30! $ 4 6 0 . 0 0 } $ 138.00 09/13/2017| Michael J Mixer review and analyze RISC and payments made re settlement 0.30] $ 460.00|5 138.00 09/13/2017} Michael J Mixer review and analyze client d o c u m e n t s and statements re vehicle rental status 0.60} $ 4 6 0 . 0 0 | $ 276.00 09/13/2017) Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re Carfax report 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/14/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re settlement 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/14/2017) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re documents and signing 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/14/2017|Michael J Mixer review and analyze documents re execution per telephone conference with client 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/14/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to defense counsel re settlement _ 0.30] $ 460.00 /$ 138.00 09/14/2017] Michael J Mixer review and analyze monthly payments and maintenance re damages 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re damages and analysis 0.20] $ 460:00 | $ 92.00 09/15/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re rescission 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/15/2017} Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re damages 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of documents from defense counsel and client documents produced re rental disclo 0.40) $ 460.00} $ 184.00 09/15/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re status and damages 0.30) $ 460.00} $ 138.00 09/18/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re damages 0.10] $ 460.00 |S 46.00 09/18/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze client correspondence and documents produced to pr* telephone conference with cl 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/18/2017|Michael J Mixer telephone conference with clientredamages 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/21/2017|Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re T M C C representation 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/21/2017 |Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents per correspondence from defense counsel re account status 0.40; $ 460.00 |$ 184.00 09/21/2017 |Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to defense counsel re status and extension to answer 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/21/2017 Michael J Mixer analysis of client and dealership documents and signatures re rental disclosures 0.60/ $ 460,00 | $ 276.00 09/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re dealership document production 0.30| $ 460.00 |$ 138.00 09/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer revise settlement offer response per correspondence from client 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re settlement 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/22/2017 Michael J Mixer conference with HR re case strategy 0.10] $460.00|$ 46.00 09/22/2017| Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/22/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of revised correspondence to defense counsel re settlement 0.40} $ 460.00|$ 184.00 Page 3 of 7 RBB BILLING Date N a m e Notes /Duration! Rate Total | 09/22/2017|Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/22/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents per telephone conference with client re rental 0.40} $ 460.001 $ 184.00 09/25/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client re facts 0.10! $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 09/25/2017 |Michael J Mixer telephone conference with clients re facts and settlement 0.50! $ 460.00;$ 230.00 09/25/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze client correspondence and documents to prepare for telephone conference call wit 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 09/26/2017 Michael J Mixer preparation of m e m o to file re factual allegations 0.40} $ 460.00} $ 184.00 09/28/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze client notes re signing documents 0.30] $460.00 |$ 138.00 09/29/2017| Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents and pleading re preparation of discovery plan 0.30| $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 10/10/2017| Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 10/10/2017| Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re settlement 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 10/11/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze client documents re disclosure 0.30! $ 460.00;$ 138.00 10/31/2017|Michael J Mixer review and analyze correspondence from d* re settlement terms 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 10/31/2017 | Michael J Mixer telephone conference with client 0.10| $ 460.00 |$ 46.00 11/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re settlement 0.20 $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 11/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 11/06/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of C M S 0.60] $ 460.00 |5 276.00 11/06/2017) Michael J Mixer review and analyze client correspondence re settlement offer 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 11/07/2017|Michael J Mixer review and analyze correspondence from client 0.20} $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 11/07/2017 |Michael J Mixer review and analyze damages per cg* client re response to settlement offer 0.30] $ 4 6 0 . 0 0 / $ 138.00 11/08/2017|Hal D. Rosner Review purported settlemt letter and related materials: draft response and meet with M M 0.40| $ 640.00 !$ 256.00 11/08/2017) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 11/08/2017] Michael J Mixer analysis re response to settlement offer 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 11/08/2017| Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence from client re settlement 0.30! $ 460.00 !$ 138.00 11/08/2017} Michael J Mixer analysis re vehicle value 0.30] $ 460.00} $ 138.00 11/09/2017|Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to defense counsel re settlement 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 11/09/2017 | Michael J Mixer research and analysis re value of vehicle re offset 0.30; $ 460.00 | $ 138.00 11/10/2017/Hal D. Rosner Review and revise 998s 0.30] $ 640.00 |$ 192.00 11/10/2017|Michael J Mixer preparation of 998 to T M C C 0.40! $ 460.00 ;$ 184.00 11/10/2017) Michael J Mixer preparation of 998 to RosevilleToyota 0.40} $ 460.00;$ 184.00 11/10/2017) Michael J Mixer preparation of 998 to RLI | 0.30} $ 460.00 |$ 138.00 11/10/2017 | Michael J Mixer . preparation of revised 998 offers 0.30} $ 460.00; $ 138.00 11/17/2017 |Michael J Mixer review and analyze status re response to correspondence to defense counsel and 998offer 0.20) $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 11/27/2017) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re settlement 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 11/27/2017 | Michael J Mixer review and analyze prior correspondence from defense counsel re preparation of response 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/07/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from dc re settlement 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/07/2017 |Michaet J Mixer receipt and review of request for VI 0.10! $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/14/2017| Michael J Mixer telephone conference with clients re V! 0.20] $ 460.00 | $ 92.00 12/18/2017) Michael J Mixer telephone conference with defense counsel re VI 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 Page 4 of 7 RBB BILLING Date Name Notes | Duration| Rate Total 12/18/2017 |Michaet J Mixer preparation of correspondence to defense counsel re VI 0.10| $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/20/2017|Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re V/ 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/20/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/21/2017 {Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/21/2017 | Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 12/21/2017 |Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client 0.10) $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/05/2018|Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/16/2018] Michael J Mixer telephone conference with defense counsel re V1 0:10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/16/2018) Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to client re VI 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/16/2018) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client and preparation of response 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/17/2018 Michael J Mixer preparation of correspondence to defense counsel re VI 0.10} $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/19/2018) Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from defense counsel re VI and preparation of response 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/25/2018 | Michael J Mixer receipt and review of correspondence from client and preparation of response 0.10] $ 460.00 | $ 46.00 01/30/2018) Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from Britton re VI; review file re VI and case issues 0.20} $590.00; $ 118.00 01/30/2018/Christopher P. Barry e-mail client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 01/30/2018) Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton confirming VI 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 04/30/2018 | Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from client 0.10} $ 580,00 | $ 59.00 02/06/2018! Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from client 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/06/2018| Christopher P. Barry e-mail client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/06/2018|Christopher P. Barry review follow up e-mail from client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/14/2018) Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/44/2018} Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from Britton 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/22/2018|Hal D, Rosner Review defense settlement letter(.1); memo to HB re case status 0.20| $ 640.00 | 5 128.00 02/23/2018 | Christopher P. Barry review correspondence from Britton; review m e m o from HDR; review client damages; e-mail client re o 0 . 4 0 ' $ 5 9 0 . 0 0 | $ 236.00 02/23/2018) Christopher P. Barry conf w/HDR re VI 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/26/2018! Christopher P. Barry exchange e-mails with client 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 02/27/2018 | Christopher P. Barry Tic client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/10/2018|Christopher P. Barry review client d o c u m e n t s re damages; e-mail settlement d e m a n d to Britton 0.30| $590.00; $ 177.00 03/20/2018) Christopher P. Barry review correspondence from Britton 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/20/2018] Christopher P. Barry review fee bill; e-mail d e m a n d to Britton 0.50) $ 590.00 /$ 295.00 03/20/2018 Christopher P. Barry review/respond to e-mail from Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/21/2018|Christopher P, Barry review e-mail from Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 39.00 03/21/2018 | Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/22/2018} Christopher P. Barry e-mail client re settlement negotiations 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/27/2018| Christopher P. Barry review/respond to e-mail from client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/29/2018) Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 03/29/2018! Christopher P. Barry review correspondence from Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 04/06/2018] Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton re settlement offer 0.10} 5 590.00 | $ 59.00 Page 5 of 7 RBB BILLING Date N a m e Notes Duration Rate Total 04/07/2018|Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from Britton 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 04/18/2018] Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 05/07/2018 | Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from client 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 05/08/2018 | Christopher P. Barry conf w/Britton 0.10} § 590.00! $ - 59.00 05/08/2018 | Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 05/08/2018| Christopher P. Barry e-mail client 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 05/08/2018| Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from Britton 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 05/10/2018} Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from client 0.10; $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 06/07/2018 | Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 06/08/2018/ Christopher P. Barry review e-mail from Britton 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 06/08/2018) Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton 0.10! $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 06/21/2018) Christopher P. Barry exchange e-mails with client 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 06/21/2018) Christopher P. Barry memo to LBS re settlement and fee motion 0.10] $590.00} $5 59.00 0 6 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 8 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to defense 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36:00 06/22/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith draft settlement agmt 0.20} $ 360.00 | $ 72.00 06/27/2018 Christopher P. Barry revise settlement agreement 0.30} $ 5 9 0 . 0 0 / $ 177.00 06/28/2018| R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to client 0.10) $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 07/10/2018] Reagan Lacee B Smith respond to email from client 0.10} $ 360.00|$ 36.00 07/13/2018} Christopher P. Barry prepare fee bill for motion 0.40} $590.00|$ 236.00 0 7 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 8 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to defense counsel 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 07/24/2018)|Reagan Lacee B Smith draft mtn for attorney's fees and costs 3.00} § 360.00 | $ 1,080.00 07/27/2018} R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to defense counsel 0.10] $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 08/01/2018 | Christopher P. Barry revise fee motion 1 . 5 0 1 $ 5 9 0 . 0 0 ; $ 885.00 08/06/2018) Christopher P. Barry review m e m o from LBS re status of settlement 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 08/06/2018} Reagan Lacee B Smith email to defense counsel 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 08/06/2018} R e a g a n Lacee B Smith respond to email from defense 0.10! $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 08/08/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith respond to email from client 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 08/13/2018|Christopher P. Barry review m e m o from LBS re status of settlement agreement 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 0 8 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 8 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to defense counsel 0.10] $ 360,00 | $ 36.00 08/15/2018; Christopher P. Barry review correspondence from Britton 0.10) $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 08/15/2018] Christopher P. Barry review/revise sett agt from Britton 0.80} $ 5 9 0 . 0 0 |S 472.00 08/20/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith -_|email to client 0.10] $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 08/21/2018) Christopher P. Barry e-mail Britton re settlement 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 08/28/2018] Christopher P. Barry conf wiLBS re status of settlement 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 08/29/2018) Christopher P. Barry review dealer proposed edits to settlement agreement 0.10) $ 590,00 | S 59.00 08/31/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith email to defense counsel 0.10] $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 0 9 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 8 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith email to client 0.10] $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 10/02/2018} Christopher P. Barry review/respond to m e m o from LBS re change to sett agt 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 Page 6 o f 7 RBB BILLING Date Name Notes Duration; Rate | Total 10/02/2018! Reagan Lacee B Smith revise fee motion 1.60] $ 360.00; S$ 576.00 1 0 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 8 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith draft cost s u m m a r y and worksheet; m e m o to HB re same 1.00} $ 360.00 ;$ 360.00 10/12/2018|Christopher P. Barry review memo from LBS re status of settlement 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 10/15/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith review correspondence form defense 0.10) $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 10/16/2018) Christopher P. Barry review memo from LBS re status of settlement 0.10} $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 10/16/2018| Reagan Lacee B Smith memo to HB 0.10] $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 10/16/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith revise settlement agreement 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 10/24/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith email to client 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 10/31/2018 |Reagan Lacee B Smith revise agmt and email to defense counse! 0.20| $ 360.00 | $ 72.00 11/05/2018 |Reagan Lacee B Smith revise settlement agreemetn and email to defense counsel 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 11/05/2018 |Reagan Lacee B Smith -_/ email to client 0.10} $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 11/06/2018 |Reagan Lacee B Smith Call to client 0.20) $ 360.00 | $ 72.00 11/06/2018 | R e a g a n Lacee B Smith revise fee motion 0.30) $ 360.00 |$ 108.00 11/12/2018 |Christopher P. Barry revise client declaration 0.10] $ 590.00 | $ 59.00 11/13/2018 |Reagan Lacee B Smith e-mail to defense counsel 0.10) $ 360.00 | $ 36.00 11/15/2018 Christopher P. Barry revise fee motion and supporting documents 0.40; $590.00} $ 236.00 1115/2018 Reagan Lacee B Smith exchange emails with defense counsel 0.30} $ 360.00} $ 108.00 11/20/2018 Christopher P. Barry revise fee motion and supporting d o c u m e n t s 0.70} $590.00; $ 413.00 11/20/2018) Reagan Lacee B Smith revise fee motion 0.30] $ 3 6 0 . 0 0 / $ 108.00 12/10/2048] Christopher P. Barry review opposition; revise reply 1.00} $590.00} $ 590.00 12/10/2018|Reagan Lacee B Smith review opposition; draft reply brief 3.00} $ 360.00 | $ 1,080.00 12/20/2018|Christopher P. Barry attend hearing on fee motion 1.00) $ 590.00/$ 590.00 TOTALS 73.60} $ 468.14 | $ 34,455.00 Page 7 of 7 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NAME: FILIMON v. ROSEVILLE TOYOTA COURT: PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO.: SCV 0039808 PROOF OF SERVICE I am 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 JOHN A. BRITTON 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 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 1%, 2018, at Roseville, California. Joyke Jir&bani Vv