Legal Document: BIG WASHINGTON, LLC VS FRY ET AL

On October 05, 2017 a Motion.for.Fees-Declaration (011723) was filed involving a dispute between Big Washington, Llc, A California Limited Liability Company, and Benhong, Ruth M. Fry As Trustee Of The T & R Fry Family Trust, Thomas H. Fry As Trustee Of The T&R Fry Family Trust, for 26-CV Other Real Property-Civil Unlimited in the District Court of Kern County.

Preview
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: (661) 316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com; elizabeth@alexander-law.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION

10 **********

11 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California Limited ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Liability Company, )
12
) DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L.
13 Plaintiff, ) ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
) OF DEFENDANT, RUTH M. FRY,
14 vs. ) TRUSTEE OF THE T&R FRY FAMILY
) TRUST, FOR ORDER AWARDING
15
BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES
16 LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; )
and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
17 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; )
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Date: February 16, 2023
18
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Defendants. ) Div.: H
) Complaint Filed: October 2, 2017
20 _______________________________________ )
21 I, WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, declare as follows:
22 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before the courts of the state of California. I am
23 the principal of Alexander & Associates, PLC, counsel of record for defendants, Thomas H. Fry and
24 Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust (the “Fry Defendants”). As such, I have
25 personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and if called upon to testify, I would and
26 could testify to such facts.
27 2. I make this Declaration in support of the Motion of Ruth M. Fry as Trustee of the T&R
28 Fry Family Trust for an order awarding attorneys’ fees.

1
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 THE LITIGATION HISTORY
2 3. This litigation spanned more than 5 years. The first billing entry was November 9,
3 2017 and trial concluded on December 28, 2022.
4 4. The amount of damages sought by Plaintiff in this case was approximately $16 million.
5 5. There have been roughly 31 hearings in this case, 6 case management conferences, 4
6 mandatory settlement conferences, and 6 petitions for writ of mandate/petitions for review.
7 6. There were 6 depositions taken in this case.
8 7. The matter was resolved by jury trial that began December 12, 2022 and concluded on
9 December 28, 2022.
10 8. The case was on-again, off-again in nature due to the multiple suspensions imposed by
11 the State Bar of California on Plaintiff’s COO, Chief Operating Officer, and former counsel of record,
12 Ben Eilenberg.
13 9. The litigation was contentious. The filing of the Complaint, coupled with Plaintiff’s
14 conduct throughout this litigation, have caused the fees incurred by the Fry Defendants.
15 10. For example, Plaintiff’s failure and refusal to produce highly relevant documents
16 through written discovery and depositions further increased the time and expense necessary to litigate
17 and try the issues framed by the Complaint. Most, if not all of these additional fees and expenses,
18 were a result of the litigation conduct and tactics of Plaintiff.
19 11. At seemingly every turn, Plaintiff has objected, obstructed, or failed to cooperate,
20 resulting in inefficient litigation and the inability to resolve this matter.
21 12. Specific information about the conduct of this litigation is set forth below.
22 The Pleadings
23 13. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the
24 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, trespass, and nuisance. The complaint alleges
25 damages for cost of removal of roughly 40,000 tons of plastic on Plaintiff’s property, lost rents, and
26 the additional costs Plaintiff incurred in financing the property due to the presence of the plastic.
27 14. My office prepared a motion to strike in response to the complaint, only to have the
28 motion rejected because the complaint had been dismissed. It was at that time that my office

2
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 discovered that Plaintiff’s counsel of record at the time, Ben Eilenberg, had missed multiple order to
2 show cause hearings regarding service, resulting in dismissal of the complaint. That was
3 approximately April 2018.
4 15. In or about August 2018, Mr. Eilenberg filed an ex parte application to set aside the
5 dismissal, which my office opposed. That application was granted. My office then filed the motion
6 to strike again, resulting in the allegations pertaining to punitive damages being stricken.
7 16. My office then filed an answer. My office prepared a cross-complaint against Benhong
8 (America) Recycling Co., Ltd. and Plaintiff for indemnity and declaratory relief, but the cross-
9 complaint was never filed for reasons that cannot be disclosed to this Court due to the attorney-client
10 privilege and attorney work-product doctrine.
11 17. In or about October 2021, my office asked Plaintiff to stipulate to the filing of a first
12 amended answer. Plaintiff refused to stipulate. Therefore, my office filed a motion for leave to file
13 the first amended answer. That motion was granted on or about November 22, 2021.
14 18. My office filed the first amended answer on or about December 12, 2022.
15 The Judgment and Motion to Set Aside the Judgment
16 19. Between June 2020 and August 2020, Plaintiff failed to appear at three scheduled court
17 hearings.
18 20. Based upon this Court’s docket and information from Mr. Eilenberg, itseems that
19 Plaintiff had consulted with and/or retained an attorney, Ronald Ask. There was even a reservation
20 reflected in this Court’s docket for a motion for summary judgment (to be filed by Plaintiff evidently)
21 reserved by Mr. Ask’s office. No substitution of attorney was filed and no motion for summary
22 judgment was filed.
23 21. On or about August 5, 2020, this Court struck Plaintiff’s complaint. Judgment was
24 then entered against Plaintiff and in favor of the Fry Defendants. The Fry Defendants then moved for
25 attorneys’ fees, which were awarded in September 2020.
26 22. In or about November 2020, Richard Jacobs, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed a motion to
27 set aside the judgment and scheduled the hearing on that motion for December 2020. This Court
28 tentatively denied the motion on a procedural ground and also on the substantive ground that Plaintiff

3
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 had not made the requisite showing under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473. Rather than denying
2 the motion, this Court continued the hearing to Monday, January 25, 2021 to allow Plaintiff to file a
3 substitution of attorney and to supplement its evidence.
4 23. On or about Friday, January 22, 2021, my office received Plaintiff’s supplemental
5 filing. My office prepared and filed a response to it. At the January 25, 2021 hearing the following
6 Monday, this Court indicated that it had not received the January 25, 2021 supplemental filing from
7 Plaintiff because the filing clerk had rejected it. This Court therefore continued the hearing again to
8 February 24, 2021. Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration and my office responded again.
9 24. This Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment on or about February
10 24, 2021.
11 The Motions for Summary Adjudication/Judgment
12 25. There have been four motions for summary adjudication/judgment heard in this case.
13 26. My office filed on behalf of the Fry Defendants a first motion for summary judgment
14 in 2019 on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to offer evidence that would support each element of its
15 causes of action asserted against the Fry Defendants. That motion was denied.
16 27. In or about March 2021, promptly after this Court set aside the judgment against
17 Plaintiff on February 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed its motion for summary adjudication. Plaintiff’s motion
18 sought summary adjudication that the Fry Defendants owed a duty to remove the plastic from
19 Plaintiff’s property. Due to the discovery disputes outlined below including Plaintiff’s failure and
20 refusal to produce witnesses for depositions, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication was not
21 heard until April 2022, more than a year later. The Fry Defendants prepared and filed an opposition
22 to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion was denied.
23 28. On behalf of the Fry Defendants, my office filed a second motion for summary
24 judgment on or about October 26, 2021. This motion was based upon the Fry Defendants’ affirmative
25 defenses. The motion was denied.
26 29. The third motion for summary adjudication was filed by the Fry Defendants on
27 February 8, 2022. The motion was made on the ground that the Fry Defendants did not owe any duty
28 to remove the plastic from Plaintiff’s property after January 13, 2016. The motion was granted in part

4
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 and denied in part. This Court granted the motion as to the first two causes of action sounding in
2 contract but denied the motion as to the causes of action for trespass and nuisance.
3 The Discovery and Discovery Disputes
4 30. In or about June 2018, Plaintiff propounded on each of the Fry Defendants a set of
5 special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. My office
6 initially did not serve responses because the order dismissing the complaint had been entered. After
7 the dismissal was set aside, my office served responses.
8 31. In or about October 2018, Mr. Eilenberg was suspended from the practice of law. My
9 office therefore did not propound discovery and waited until Mr. Eilenberg’s suspension concluded
10 before propounding discovery. In March 2019, my office propounded on Plaintiff a set of requests for
11 admissions, 129 special interrogatories, and 52 requests for production.
12 32. On or about April 30, 2019, my office propounded a second set of requests for
13 production, which included requests for two additional categories of documents.
14 33. By June 11, 2019, my office had not received responses to the discovery propounded.
15 Therefore, my office filed motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and the two sets of
16 document requests, and a motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted. The hearings were
17 set for July 15 and 17, 2019.
18 34. On or about July 15, 2019, my office received responses to the first set of discovery.
19 Plaintiff never served responses to the second set of requests for production.
20 35. My office sent deposition subpoenas for business records to Calcot, Ltd. (twice), real
21 estate agent Stephen Haupt, and law firm Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd & Gin, LLP. Despite
22 numerous conversations with and promises by Calcot, Ltd. and Griswold LaSalle, neither produced
23 documents in response to the subpoenas.
24 36. My office also conducted informal witness interviews, sometimes multiple interviews,
25 including, e.g., of Stephen Haupt, attorney Ty Mizote, attorney John Marshall, and Josh Kimball, who
26 submitted a business proposal to Plaintiff for a lease of warehouses and removal of the plastic.
27 37. In January 2020, my office began setting depositions for witnesses. My office sent
28 deposition notices and subpoenas for Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable, Ben Eilenberg, Joe Cain

5
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 (employee of Calcot), and Jarral Neeper (former president and CEO of Calcot).
2 38. My office deposed both Joe Cain and Jarral Neeper.
3 39. The depositions of Mr. Eilenberg and Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable were set
4 for February 11, 2020. Although my office had attempted to reach out to Mr. Eilenberg prior to the
5 scheduled depositions to confirm that the witnesses would appear, Mr. Eilenberg did not respond.
6 Therefore, my office prepared for the depositions. No witnesses appeared on February 11, 2020.
7 40. The depositions of Mr. Eilenberg and Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable were re-
8 scheduled for March 9, 2020. Again, my office prepared for the depositions and again, no witnesses
9 appeared for their depositions.
10 41. Nevertheless, on or about March 9, 2020, Mr. Eilenberg gave my office notice of an ex
11 parte hearing on Plaintiff’s application for an order shortening time on a motion to compel the
12 depositions of each of the Fry Defendants, even though the Fry Defendants had not failed to appear at
13 any noticed deposition or refused to appear for deposition. This Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte
14 application and, upon Mr. Eilenberg’s request, set a hearing date of March 20, 2020 on Plaintiff’s
15 motion to compel the depositions. By that time, Mr. Eilenberg knew that he would be suspended by
16 the State Bar beginning March 22, 2020 (he testified during his first day of depositions that he received
17 notice from the California Supreme Court 30 days prior to his suspension that he would be suspended).
18 Nevertheless, on behalf of Plaintiff, he filed a motion to compel depositions that he could not take,
19 causing the Fry Defendants to incur unnecessary expense in opposing the motion. The Fry Defendants
20 opposed the motion.
21 42. Due to Mr. Eilenberg’s and Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the March 9, 2020
22 depositions, my office also filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear a motion
23 to compel the depositions. This Court granted that application and set the hearing on the Fry
24 Defendants’ motion for March 20, 2020 as well.
25 43. On or about March 17, 2020, this Court continued the cross-motions due to a temporary
26 halt on the hearing of civil matters due to Covid-19. The hearings were continued to April 7, 2020.
27 This Court continued the hearings again to June 9, 2020. Of course, by that time, Mr. Eilenberg’s
28 license to practice law was suspended and he did not appear at the hearing. After two additional

6
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 continuances of the hearings and Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the continued hearings, this Court
2 dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and ruled that the motions to compel the depositions were moot.
3 44. In or about February 2021, this Court set aside its order dismissing Plaintiff’s
4 complaint. Therefore, in April 2021, my office resumed its attempts to depose key witnesses and sent
5 deposition notices for Mr. Eilenberg, Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable, Stephanie Smith, and
6 Martin Smith. This launched a nearly 1-year long dispute over the depositions.
7 a. In response to the April 2021 deposition notices, Plaintiff’s then counsel of record,
8 Richard Jacobs, advised that the selected dates for deposition were not available.
9 b. On June 30, 2021, my office sent re-notices of deposition. Again, Mr. Jacobs advised
10 that the selected dates were not available.
11 c. After attempting to work out new dates with Plaintiff’s counsel, my office was up
12 against a deadline for the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.
13 My office therefore filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing on
14 Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication to allow time to conduct the necessary
15 depositions. That ex parte application was granted. This Court instructed the parties
16 to work together to schedule mutually agreeable deposition dates.
17 d. On August 26, 2021, my office sent new notices of deposition. Mr. Jacobs advised that
18 he had been called to trial and could not attend the depositions.
19 e. In September 2021, my office sent new notices for deposition, scheduled for September
20 28 and 29, 2021. Mr. Jacobs then advised that Stephanie and Martin Smith could not
21 and would not appear at their depositions in person.
22 f. On or about October 1, 2021, my office filed an ex parte application to compel the
23 depositions and/or continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary
24 adjudication. That application was granted. The parties thereafter agreed that the
25 depositions would take place on November 29 and 30 and December 1, 2021.
26 g. On or about October 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the
27 Fifth District Court of Appeal regarding the order compelling the depositions. My
28 office prepared a preliminary response and received notice on or about October 19,

7
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 2021 that the petition had been denied.
2 h. On or about November 17, 2021, my office was notified that Plaintiff had filed another
3 petition for writ of mandate. My office received notice on November 23, 2021 that the
4 second petition was denied.
5 i. My office therefore began preparing again for the depositions. On November 24, 2021,
6 Mr. Jacobs advised that Martin and Stephanie Smith would not appear at their
7 scheduled depositions and that Mr. Eilenberg had recently been exposed to Covid-19.
8 j. On November 30, 2021, my office received a third petition for writ of mandate. The
9 petition for writ was denied.
10 k. On December 10, 2021, my office received notice from the California Supreme Court
11 that Plaintiff had filed a petition for review. My office prepared a formal, letter
12 response to the petition for review, as was requested by the California Supreme Court.
13 Plaintiff did not initially request a stay from the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff
14 later requested a stay but never obtained a stay order. On January 19, 2022, the
15 petition for review was denied.
16 l. On or about December 27, 2021, my office filed an ex parte application for an order
17 denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication due to Plaintiff’s failure to
18 produce witnesses at the depositions that this Court had already compelled, or in the
19 alternative, to continue the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication again. My
20 office also filed a motion for terminating or evidentiary sanctions based upon Plaintiff’s
21 failure to comply with this Court’s order compelling the depositions. At that time, the
22 California Supreme Court had not yet made a determination on Plaintiff’s petition for
23 review. Therefore, this Court continued Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication
24 again and requested a future status update as to the petition for review.
25 m. Following the California Supreme Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s petition for review,
26 Plaintiff gave notice of an ex parte application for a protective order pertaining to the
27 same depositions as to which Plaintiff had refused produce the witnesses.
28 n. On or about February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order, or in the

8
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 alternative, an order deeming the depositions of Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable
2 and of its principals already taken.
3 o. On February 4, 2022, this Court heard the Fry Defendants’ motion for terminating
4 sanctions and Plaintiff’s motion for protective order. At that hearing, this Court ordered
5 that the depositions of Plaintiff’s principals and persons most knowledgeable occur on
6 April 5-7, 2022.
7 p. On or about March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to advance the
8 deposition date of Stephanie Smith.
9 q. On or about March 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed another petition for writ of mandate
10 pertaining to this Court’s order requiring the depositions to move forward. That
11 petition was denied on or about March 29, 2022.
12 r. The depositions of Ben Eilenberg, Stephanie Smith, and Craig Martin Smith finally
13 proceeded as scheduled on April 5-7, 2022, along with a second day for Ben Eilenberg
14 on or about May 24, 2022.
15 45. In February 2022, my office sent a third request for production of documents. Plaintiff
16 failed to respond, and my office was forced to file another motion to compel. That motion was heard
17 in May 2022.
18 MSCs and Continued Trial Dates
19 46. Mandatory settlement conferences took place over four different dates: July 19, 2019,
20 August 2, 2019, August 9, 2019, and April 29, 2022.
21 47. There have been 8 trial dates set. The trial dates set were:
22 a. August 12, 2019 (continued due to petition for writ filed with the Fifth District)
23 b. April 13, 2020 (continued due to Covid-19)
24 c. December 14, 2020 (vacated due to dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint)
25 d. May 31, 2022 (rescheduled to June 6, 2022)
26 e. June 6, 2022 (transferred to Division J and then retransferred to Division H)
27 f. July 11, 2022 (trailed due to Court’s unavailability)
28 g. September 26, 2022 (continued upon Plaintiff’s request due to association of new

9
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 counsel)
2 h. December 5, 2022 (trailed to December 12, 2022)
3 i. December 12, 2022.
4 48. My office prepared for trial on at least three occasions.
5 49. My office began preparing for the August 12, 2019 trial date and drafted exhibit and
6 witness lists. The trial, however, was continued as indicated above.
7 50. In March 2020, just before the April 2020 trial date, my office began drafting an ex
8 parte application to continue the trial date because the depositions of key witnesses had not yet been
9 taken. That application, however, was rendered unnecessary when this Court continued the trial on
10 its own motion due to Covid-19.
11 51. For the June 6, 2022 trial, my office again began preparing. My office served notices
12 to appear at trial, eight motions in limine, special jury instructions, and an exhibit and witness list. My
13 office also reviewed the pre-trial submissions from Plaintiff, including its four motions in limine and
14 its oppositions to the Fry Defendants’ pre-trial motions.
15 The Petitions for Writs and Review
16 52. My office filed one petition for writ of mandate in this case. The petition was filed in
17 connection with this Court’s July 2019 denial of the Fry Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
18 53. Plaintiff filed five petitions. Plaintiff filed three petitions for writ of mandate with the
19 Fifth District Court of Appeal pertaining to this Court’s October 2021 order compelling the depositions
20 of the Smiths, Ben Eilenberg, and Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable. Plaintiff also filed a petition
21 for review with the California Supreme Court on that same order.
22 54. In or about March 2022, Plaintiff filed another petition for writ pertaining to the order
23 compelling Stephanie Smith to be deposed in California. That petition was denied.
24 55. And in December 2022, during the trial, Plaintiff filed another petition for writ with
25 respect to this Court’ order compelling the in-person attendance of Stephanie Smith and Martin Smith
26 at trial. That petition for writ also was denied.
27 56. In connection with many of these writs, my office prepared preliminary responses and
28 conducted the legal research and analysis required. On several occasions, the petitions were denied

10
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 before my office completed and/or filed the preliminary response.
2 THE TRIAL
3 57. Trial commenced on December 12, 2022 and concluded December 28, 2022. My office
4 prepared a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the form of the
5 judgment, which this Court overruled.
6 THE ATTORNEYS AND FEES CHARGED
7 58. I prepared the spreadsheet attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A showing the
8 attorneys’ fees incurred. The attorneys’ fees incurred in this action are $317,805 before crediting
9 Plaintiff for monetary sanctions ordered and paid, and ordered (but not paid by Plaintiff).
10 59. Alisyn Palla, Elizabeth Estrada, Marshall Thomas, and I are the only attorneys who
11 provided services in this lawsuit.
12 60. I have been licensed to practice law in the State of California for over 35 years. I was
13 admitted to the bar in 1987. I have practiced complex litigation in many fields, including real property,
14 business, construction, insurance bad faith, personal injury, and natural resources. I am licensed to
15 practice law in several federal courts, including multiple districts in California, the Southern District
16 of Texas, Colorado, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
17 61. I have litigated dozens of complex litigation matters through verdict, bench decision,
18 and arbitration decision, including matters similar to this one. I have made numerous applications for
19 statutory (and prevailing party contractual) attorney’s fee awards, and all have been made without
20 reduction, or perhaps a nominal reduction in the rare instance.
21 62. I have practiced my entire career based in Bakersfield and am very familiar with the
22 hourly rates charged by attorneys in the Bakersfield area.
23 63. My standard hourly rate in this case originally was $375 per hour and subsequently
24 increased to $450 per hour. My hourly rate is comparable with, if not below, the hourly rates charged
25 by attorneys with comparable experience, qualifications and standards, skills, reputation, and
26 outcomes to mine.
27 64. Ms. Palla has been licensed to practice law since 2005. I worked with Ms. Palla from
28 approximately 2011 through 2019. Prior to working with my office, Ms. Palla worked for various law

11
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 firms and practiced as a sole practitioner. She practiced in areas of probate litigation, business,
2 construction, employment, and real estate. If Ms. Palla had been working at a larger firm, her rate
3 likely would have ranged from $250 to $275 per hour. Her standard hourly rate of $200 was charged
4 in this case.
5 65. Ms. Estrada has been licensed to practice law since 2004. She worked at Klein,
6 DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball (“KDG”) from 2004 until she joined my firm in
7 2011. She has primarily worked on cases involving real property litigation, employment, and general
8 civil litigation. When she left KDG in 2011, she was being billed at $210 per hour. If she were still
9 working at a larger firm, I believe she would be billed at between $275 to $350 per hour. In this case,
10 her time has been billed from $250 per hour to $275 per hour.
11 66. Mr. Thomas performed minimal work in this case. He conducted some legal research
12 on the application of the attorney-client privilege to the circumstances presented in this case: an officer
13 who is also an attorney and who has acted as attorney of record in the litigation. Mr. Thomas also
14 drafted a motion for contempt for Plaintiff’s failure to pay sanctions awarded by the Court. For reasons
15 subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the motion was not filed.
16 Mr. Thomas was admitted to the bar in 2021 and has been with my firm since admission. Prior to his
17 employment at my firm, Mr. Thomas was a law clerk at KDG, where his time was billed at $150 per
18 hour even as a law clerk. In this case, Mr. Thomas’ time was billed at $150.
19 67. I have possession of all of the Fry Defendants’ time and billing records pertaining to
20 the attorneys’ fees in this matter (with the exception of those bills that have not yet been issued to
21 them). The records support the above statements and Exhibit A and are available for in camera review
22 at the request of this Court.
23 68. Additionally, I have the attorney-client fee agreement in my possession. I believe that
24 the fee agreement is subject to the attorney-client privilege, but am willing to make it available for in
25 camera review at the request of this Court.
26 69. A copy of the lease agreement containing the attorneys’ fees provision is attached to
27 Plaintiff’s complaint and is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B.
28 70. No secretarial or paralegal time was charged to the Fry Defendants in this case, despite

12
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1 the fact that they performed significant work on this case and that I have the right to charge for such
2 time and work.
3 71. During the preparation for this trial and in conducting the trial, I billed for significantly
4 less time than I worked. During the case I also periodically did not charge for time spent working on
5 behalf of the Fry Defendants. Sometimes this was because of what I perceived as duplication or
6 services, and others because I felt the time spent should not be charged.
7 72. Based upon the above, I respectfully request that this Court issue an order awarding
8 attorneys’ fees to the Fry Defendants in the sum $317,805.00 less the sum of $4,000 (which represents
9 $3,000 in sanctions paid by Plaintiff in July 2019, and $1,000 in sanctions paid in February 2022),
10 resulting in a total attorney’s award of $313,805.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
12 is true and correct and this is executed this 17th day of January 2023 in Bakersfield, California.
13
14 /s/ William L. Alexander /s/
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT OF FRYS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
EXHIBIT “A”
3:01 PM
Alexander & Associates, PLC
Customer QuickReport
N-· ,r 1 1017 thrni uih J;in11;in, 16 nn
•
Date Memo Atty Time Rate Amount
conference with Mark Smith re: refenal, facts and details, defenses, issues,
11/09/2017 clients, etc. (NO CHARGE TO CLIENT) WLA 0.5 $ 375 $ -
Office conference with Messrs F1y and Rlchardson re:

; review of complaint filed; online
research re: Benhong, plaintiff and plaintiffs counsel; review of all
11/21/2017 documents provided by clients at and before meeting; WLA 3.5 $ 375 $ 1,312.50
(thrn 12/21) conferences and emails with John re:

12/21/2017 WLA 2 $ 375 $ 750.00
office conference with Messrs. F1y and Richardson re:

01/12/2018 WLA 1 $ 375 $ 375.00
Review file; conference call with Ben Eilenberg re extension for responsive
04/05/2018 pleading and status of case. AJP 0.6 $ 200 $ 120.00
Review complaint re allegations and analysis re demmTer and motion to
04/11/2018 strike; litigation memo; review and analysis re client documents. AJP 3.3 $ 200 $ 660.00
Conference call with Ben Eilenberg re meet and confer on demurrer / motion
04/12/2018 to strike. AJP 0.4 $ 200 $ 80.00
Review and analysis re complaint; fmther review and analysis of claims
raised and attacks thereto; email conespondence with Ben Eilenberg re
04/16/2018 defects in pleading; fmther review of client documents. AJP 2.1 $ 200 $ 420.00
Review client documents; analysis re claims and defenses; memo to file;
04/17/2018 prepare timeline; prepare motion to strike punitive damages AJP 4.1 $ 200 $ 820.00
04/18/2018 e motion to strike; legal research; fmther preparation of timeline AJP 3.3 $ 200 $ 660.00
04/19/2018 Preparation of motion to strike; research as needed. AJP 1.7 $ 200 $ 340.00
04/20/2018 Finalize motion to strike and support

Case Info

Judge

Schuett, Stephen D. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 18, 2023

Case Filing Date

October 05, 2017

County

Parties

ALEXANDER, WILLIAM L Attorney for the Defendant
BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. LTD, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Defendant
BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Plaintiff
EILENBERG, BENJAMIN A Attorney for the Plaintiff
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Non-party
JACOBS, RICHARD B Attorney for the Plaintiff
PALLA, ALISYN J Attorney for the Defendant
RUTH M. FRY AS TRUSTEE OF THE T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST Defendant
THOMAS H. FRY AS TRUSTEE OF THE T&R FRY FAMILY TRUST Defendant
Elizabeth Estrada Attorneys for Defendants
John McCroskey Attorney
John Richardson Attorney
Josiah Neeper Attorney
Charles Melton Attorney
Drevet Hunt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tatiana Gaur Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephen Holzer Attorneys for Defendants
Hannah Sweiss Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for BIG WASHINGTON, LLC VS FRY ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties