Motion-Secondary: JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                WOM

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-27-2014 03:44 pm

 

Case Number: CGC-11-514980
Filing Date: Nov-06-2013 03:45 pm
Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04266517
DECLARATION OF

 

 

 

JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS

001004266517

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.LU

E

a
~

os

 

10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C. Todd Norris, SBN 181337

Edward D. Winchester, SBN 271500

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

601 California Street, Suite 1800

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: 415.352.2700

Facsimile: 415.352.2701

E-Mail: todd:norris@bullivant.com ae PERE Courr
edward.winchester@bullivant.com Depa j

uty Cherie vw

  

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL
ESTATE GROUP, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED | Case No.: CGC-11-514980
REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF

Plaintiffs, C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
v. ATTORNEY'S FEES
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE Date: November 13, 2013
REALTY, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 608
Defendant. Judge: Wallace P. Douglass

 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Trial Date: October 9, 2012

 

 

 

I, C. Todd Norris, declare:

1. Iam an attomey with Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, counsel of record for
Plaintiffs Jason Everett ‘Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. I am licensed to practice
law in all the Courts of the State of California, and a member in good standing of the California
bar. The following information is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and
if called upon, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. Plaintiff was unaware that this motion was being opposed until Monday
aftemoon, November 4, even though any such opposition was due to be filed on October 30 and
served that same day by a means adequate to ensure receipt the following day, October 31.

Plaintiff therefore did not have adequate time to prepare its reply, which is filed and served one

14360602.1 -1l-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEESCo ow rN a

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

 

 

day late due to the fact that defendant violated the rules of procedure on three separate occasions
by filing the brief one day late, failing to serve the brief the same day it was filed, and then
serving the brief by an improper means that would not ensure delivery the following day.
Moreover, defense counsel has routinely communicated and provided papers to plaintiff's
counsel through both fax and mail throughout the course of this litigation but failed to mitigate
the above stated errors by faxing or emailing the opposition papers to plaintiff's counsel.

3. Plaintiff sought a default against defendant in this action because defendant
failed to ensure the proper filing of an answer as evidenced by the fact that defendant had never
received a filed endorsed copy of his allegedly filed answer. It was not until plaintiff requested
entry of a default that defendant followed up with the Court and obtained an admission from the
Court that the document had been received by the Court but not filed for some still unknown
reason. Regardless of what actually happened in connection with defendant’s earlier failure to
ensure the proper filing of a responsive pleading, it was not unreasonable for plaintiff to request
a default against a party who was well aware of the action but had failed to ensure the proper
filing of a responsive pleading. Plaintiff's fees were reasonably incurred under the
circumstances.

4. Defendant attacks plaintiffs motion for failing to provide evidence of prevailing
rates in San Francisco, of which this Court with its experience may take judicial notice.
Declarant has practiced commercial litigation in San Francisco for seventeen years.
Accordingly, declarant’s previously attested to rates, which are reasonable in the San Francisco
market, are a sufficient basis for this Court to base an award upon. Moreover, declarant is
aware that a number of law firms in San Francisco charge rates in excess of $750/hour for
attomeys with the same years of experience as declarant. Accordingly, the discounted and
negotiated blended rate of $300/hour for attorneys in this case was more than reasonable and
indeed saved plaintiff, and by extension defendant, thousands of dollars off of the normal
reasonable rates charged by my law firm.

5. Declarant further notes that the reasonable rate charged for the paralegal who

worked on this case was $175, ten dollars an hour lower than her normal standard rate of

14360602.1 -2-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.$185.00, which is not at all out of line for paralegals working in downtown San Francisco.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,

on November 6, 2013.

 

14360602.1
AA

-3-
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEESWU B WN

Cc oe NIN A

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

Thompson, and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Asimos, dba Drake Realty
San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-11-514980

Tam employed in the City and County of San Francisco by the law firm of Bullivant
Houser Bailey, PC ("the business"), 601 California Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA
94108. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On November 6, 2013, I served
the document(s) entitled:

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

upon the following party(ies):

Jessica R. Barsotti

THE LAW OFFICE OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
5032 Woodminster Ln.

Oakland, CA 94602

Tel: 510-530-4078

Fax: 510-530-4725

Attomeys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE
REALTY

(] BY MAIL (CCP § 1013(a)): Iam readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the
business with respect to the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-
titled document(s) in an envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon
fully prepaid. I sealed the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection and
mailing by the United States Postal Service in accordance with the ordinary practice of
the business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with the
United States Postal Service on the same day.

(J ‘BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (CCP § 1013(e), CRC 2.306): I transmitted the
document(s) by facsimile transmission by placing it(them) in a facsimile machine
(telephone number 415-352-2701) and transmitting it(them) to the facsimile machine
telephone number(s) listed above. A transmission report was properly issued by the
transmitting facsimile machine. Each transmission was reported as complete and
without error. A true and correct copy of the transmission report is attached hereto.

Dd - BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (CCP § 1013(c)); I am readily familiar with the
ordinary practice of the business with respect to the collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing by Express Mail and other carriers providing for overnight
delivery. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in an
envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I sealed
the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection arid mailing by Express Mail
or other carrier for overnight delivery in accordance with the ordinary practice of the
business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with Express
Mail or other carrier on the same day.

13664863.1 -1-
PROOF OF SERVICE(J BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON AN ATTORNEY (CCP § 101 1(a)): Iplaced a true
and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed
as indicated above. | delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a receptionist or a
person authorized to accept same at the address on the envelope, or, if no person was
present, by leaving the envelope in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours
of nine in the morning and five in the afternoon.

(1) BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON A PARTY (CCP § 1011(b)): I placed a true and
correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as
indicated above. I delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a person of not less
than 18 years of age at the address listed on the envelope, between the hours of eight in
the morning and six in the evening.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

 

 

November 6, 2013, at San Francisco, California.

[repflo

 

Daisy I. Hroyles” { SU
cack aK
13664863.1 -2-

 

PROOF OF SERVICE