Motion for Attorney Fees in LOUIS PAYCHECK vs. PUNIT K. SARNA, et al| Trellis.Law

On May 10, 2019 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Paycheck, Louis, Sarna, Punit K., and Does 1-30, Inclusive, Sarna, Puja, Sarna, Punit K., for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
MATTHEW A. HAULK (SBN: 272457) Electronically
RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP
by Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, California 94901 ON 8/17/2021
Telephone: (415) 453-9433 By__Is/ Marcela Enriquez
Facsimile: (415) 453-8269
Attorney for Defendants
PUNIT K. SARNA and
PUJA SARNA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

10 LOUIS PAYCHECK, CASE NO.: 19CIV02595
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MATTHEW A.
12 HAULK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
vs. ATTORNEY’S FEES
13
PUNIT K. SARNA, et al., DATE: October #2, 2021
14 TIME: 2:00 p.m.
Defendants. DEPT.: 4
15
COURTROOM: N
16 JUDGE: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman

7 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Complaint Filed: May 10, 2019
Trial: May 12, 2021
18

19
|, Matthew A. Haulk, declare as follows:
20 4
| am a partner at the law firm Ragghianti Freitas, LLP and am counsel of
21
record in the above-captioned action for Punit K. Sarna and Puja Sarna (collectively, the
22
“Owner”). | have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a
23
witness, | could and would competently testify thereto.
24
2 Louis Paycheck (“Paycheck”) filed this action against Puja Sarna and Punit
25
Sarna (the “Sarnas”) on May 10, 2019. The Sarnas were originally represented in this
26
litigation by Cathleen Curl, Esq. | substituted into this action as counsel of record for the
27
Sarnas in August 2019.
28

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW
A. HAULK
ATTORNEY HOURLY RATES
8 | have been a licensed member of the California State Bar since 2010. For

the past decade, | have specialized in construction law and construction litigation and |

am the co-chair of the Marin County Bar Association Construction Law Section. For the

past five years, | have regularly litigated licensing disputes, including disputes related to

contractors whose licenses are invalid through failure to obtain and maintain workers’

compensation insurance. My partner Jose Herrera, Esq, has been a licensed member of

the California State Bar since 2013. Mr. Herrera is an experienced employment attorney

and civil litigator. According to the California State Bar's website, which | accessed on
10 August 16, 2021, Ms. Curl has been licensed member of the California State Bar since

1 1979.
12 4 In 2019 and 2020, my customary and standard billing rate for new clients in

13 construction-licensing litigation in 2019 and 2020 was $395 per hour. My current

14 customary and standard billing rate for new clients in construction-licensing litigation is

16 $450 per hour. According to the USAO Attorney's Fee Matrix, formerly the Laffey-Matrix,

16 a reasonable billing rate for my time from 2019 to 2020 was $433 per hour, anda

7 reasonable billing rate for my time from 2020 through 2021 was $532 per hour. Mr.

18 Herrera’s reasonable hourly rate under the USAO Attorney's Fee Matrix in 2019, when he|

19 performed work on this case was $372 per hour. When Mr. Herrera was performing

20 services on this case, his customary hourly rate was $375 or more per hour. A true and

21 correct copy of the USAO attorney fee matrix, which | downloaded from

22 https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/page/file/1305941/download on August 13, 2021, is

23 attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

24 5. My partner Jose Herrera and | agreed to represent the Sarnas at a

25 discounted rate in this action. My engagement letter with the Sarnas states, in relevant

26 part, “My reduced rate for this matter shall be $350 per hour. My partner, Jose Herrera,

27 will be working on this case with me at the reduced rate of $300 per hour.” These were

28 the hourly rates billed to the Sarnas for the time spent on the case.

DECLARATION OF MATTHEWA. HAULK
6 | agreed to represent the Sarnas on a discounted rate for a number of

reasons. | was sympathetic to their personal circumstances and believed, based on the

facts and their litigation objectives, that the case should resolve early and without
litigation. Punit Sarna, M.D. had an infant at home and was under stress because of this

ongoing litigation and Paycheck’s lien. Dr. Sarna had an active medical practice, and

with a young family at home, the dispute was challenging for him as were Paycheck’s lien|
and litigation demands. The Sarnas expressed interest in early settlement and, while Dr.

Sarna had valuable claims, he appeared willing to resolve this case on terms favorable to
Mr. Paycheck. These circumstances lead me to agree to a discounted rate for the

10 Sarnas. Notably, at trial Dr. Sarna testified that he would have never filed an action

1 against Paycheck if Paycheck had not first filed this lawsuit against him. A true and

12 correct copy of the relevant portion of the trial transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

13 ATTORNEY TIME EXPENDED

14 7 | created contemporaneous records of all of the time | spent on this matter

15 using billing software. During the period from August 2019 through March 2021, | used

16 software called Timeslips to record my time spent on this matter on a daily basis. During

7 the period from April 2021 through the present, | used software called MyCase to record

18 my time spent on this matter on a daily basis. These same facts are true for my partner

19 Jose Herrera, whose work | oversaw on this case.

20 8 The billing summary attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy

21 of all of my billing entries for this matter and all of Jose Herrera’s billing entries for this

22 matter from August 2019 to March 2021. It was generated using the Timeslips software, |

23 have reviewed the billing entries and, using a red-pen, “struck-through” those entries for

24 which the Sarnas do not seek attorney's fees in this matter. | have identified Mr. Herrera’s|

25 time entries by writing “J.Herrera” next to them. Mr. Herrera billed 8.1 hours for this

26 matter. His work was limited to a motion for disqualification, which resulted in Paycheck’s

ar former attorney resigning from this case. The basis of the Motion was that Dr. Sarna had

28 consulted with Paycheck’s former attorney to seek representation in this case and, only

DECLARATION OF MATTHEWA. HAULK
after the two had discussed the claims and Dr. Sarna’s settlement strategy, did

Paycheck’s former attorney reveal that he already represented Paycheck in this matter.
9 The billing summary attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy

of all of my billing entries for this matter during the period from April 2021 to July 2021. It
was generated using the MyCase software. | have reviewed the billing entries and, using
a red-pen, “struck-through” those entries for which the Sarnas do not seek attorney's fees

in this matter. | have redacted a limited number of entries based on the attorney-client

privilege. | have not requested an award of fees for the entries that have been redacted. |

have removed a total of 35-hours of my time for the 2019-2020 period from this fee
10 request. | have removed a total of 17.7 hours of my time for the 2021 period from this fee

1” request.

12 10. | have spent more than 16.2 hours preparing this Motion for Attorney's
13 Fees. This time was spent researching and drafting the moving papers, including the

14 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and this Declaration,

15 and in reviewing and preparing the time records to support this Motion.

16 SETTLEMENT EFFORTS
17 11. On September 16, 2019, Paycheck served a CCP § 998 Offer to

18 Compromise demanding payment of $24,999.99. A true and correct copy of this offer is
19 attached hereto as Exhibit 5. On September 23, 2019, the Sarnas served Paycheck with

20 a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise for $2. A true and correct copy of this offer is attached

21 hereto as Exhibit 6. Paycheck did not accept the CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise.

22 12. In May 2020, the parties participated in mediation with mediator Steven

23 Rosenberg. The mediation was unsuccessful, On July 23, 2021, the parties participated

24 in a Mandatory Settlement Conference with the Honorable John L. Grandsaert. At the

25 conclusion of the Mandatory Settlement Conference, the Sarnas offered Paycheck a

26 mutual “walk-away” where each party would bear its own attorney’s fees and costs and

27 file dismissals prejudice. The offer was rejected.

4
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW A. HAULK
LITIGATION CHALLENGES
13. The discovery in this case was, from my perspective, more contested than |

typically experience in construction disputes. Paycheck served the Sarnas with written

discovery, including requests for production and special interrogatories. Paychecks first
set of written discovery was untimely. The Sarnas agreed to re-open discovery and

voluntarily provided amended responses and produced records. No law and motion
practice was necessary to complete Paycheck’s written discovery.
14. The Sarnas served written discovery on Paycheck. Paycheck responded to

the Sarnas’ Demand for a Bill of Particulars and set forth the nature of their claim,
10 specifically, that Paycheck had performed $247,525.70 in work, that the Sarnas had paid

11 him $215,000, and that $32,525.70 remained due and owing. A true and correct copy of

12 Paycheck’s “Bill of Particulars” is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. However, in response to

13 the Sarnas’ Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Paycheck lodged

14 objections and, despite meet and confer efforts, the Sarnas were forced to file a Motion to}

15 Compel. On February 20, 2020, the court granted the Sarnas’ Motion to Compel and
16 ordered Paycheck to pay monetary sanctions of $1,460. A true and correct copy of the

17 court order is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. Paycheck paid the sanctions and Paycheck’s

18 counsel provided amended responses.

19 15. Paycheck’s responses appeared deficient and the Sarnas initiated another

20 meet and confer process. Paycheck refused to produce contact information for his

21 employees despite an express ruling in the court order. In a February 28, 2020, e-mail,

22 Mr. Kelly wrote: “Re: employees, if you want to get in touch with, depose, etc. any of the

23 employees of Mr. Payheck [sic.], you can contract [sic.] my office. My client and his

24 employees do not want their phone numbers and contact information disclosed”. The

25 same e-mail stated that Paycheck did not have paychecks or pay stubs for his

26 employees. A true and correct copy of this e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

27 16. Mr, Haulk and Mr. Kelly exchanged additional meet and confer

28 correspondence. Mr. Haulk transmitted a letter dated March 27, 2020, requesting

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW
A, HAULK
amended responses and documents, and Mr. Kelly responded on March 30, 2020, with a
letter stating that Paycheck had directed Mr. Kelly to provide the following response, “I
have responded as the court asked and sent them everything | have on the project”. The

letter further stated, “Mr. Paycheck has given your client everything he has on this
project.”. A true and correct copy of my March 27, 2020, letter is attached hereto as

Exhibit 10. A true and correct copy of Mr. Kelly’s March 30, 2020, letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit 11.

17. The Sarnas were forced to file a second Motion to Compel which, in part,

relied on deposition testimony from Paycheck confirming the existence of a check

10 registry. After a court conference on the Motion to Compel, Paycheck complied with the

11 Sarnas’ discovery demands and produced 1099-MISC forms, his check registry, and his

12 employees’ contact information. A true and correct copy of Paycheck'’s November 2020

13, amended responses are attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The financial records produced

14 in response to the second Motion to Compel proved critical at trial and are referenced in

15 the Statement of Decision.

16 18. | declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,

17 that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 17, 2021, in San Rafael,

18 California.

21 Matthew A. Haulk, Esq.

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW A. HAULK
EXHIBIT 1
USAO ATTORNEY’S FEES MATRIX — 2015-2021

Revised Methodology starting with 2015-2016 Year
Years (Hourly Rate for June 1 — May 31, based on change in PPI-OL since January 2011)

Experience 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

31+ years 568 581 602 613 637 665
21-30 years 530 543 563 572 595 621

16-20 years 504 516 536 544 566 591

11-15 years 455 465 483 491 510 532

8-10 years 386 395 410 417 433 452

6-7 years 332 339 352 358 372 388

4-5 years 325 332 346 351 365 380

2-3 years 315 322 334 340 353 369

Less than 2 284 291 302 307 319 333
years

Paralegals & 154 157 164 166 173 180
Law Clerks

Explanatory Notes

This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by
the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) to evaluate requests for
attorney’s fees in civil cases in District of Columbia courts, The matrix is intended for use in cases in which a fee-
shifting statute permits the prevailing party to recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k)
(Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b)
(Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix has not been adopted by the Department of Justice generally for use
outside the District of Columbia, or by other Department of Justice components, or in other kinds of cases. The
matrix does not apply to cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

A “reasonable fee” is a fee that is sufficient to attract an adequate supply of capable counsel for meritorious cases.
See, e.g., Perdue v. KennyA. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S, 542, 552 (2010). Consistent with that definition, the hourly rates
in the above matrix were calculated from average hourly rates reported in 2011 survey data for the D.C. metropolitan
area, which rates were adjusted for inflation with the Producer Price Index-Office of Lawyers (PPI-OL) index. The
survey data comes from ALM Legal Intelligence’s 2010 & 2011 Survey of Law Firm Economics. The PPI-OL index
is available at http:/Avww_bls.gov/ppi. On that page, under “PPI Databases,” and “Industry Data (Producer Price
Index - PPI),” select either “one screen” or “multi-screen” and in the resulting window use “industry code” 541110
for “Offices of Lawyers” and “product code” 541110541110 for “Offices of Lawyers.” The average hourly rates
from the 2011 survey data are multiplied by the PPI-OL index for May in the year of the update, divided by 176.6,
which is the PPI-OL index for January 2011, the month of the survey data, and then rounding to the nearest whole
dollar (up if remainder is 50¢ or more).

The PPI-OL index has been adopted as the inflator for hourly rates because it better reflects the mix of legal services
that law firms collectively offer, as opposed to the legal services that typical consumers use, which is what the CPI-
Legal Services index measures. Although it is a national index, and nota local one, of: Eley v. District of Columbia,
793 F.3d 97, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting criticism of national inflation index), the PPI-OL index has historically
been generous relative to other possibly applicable inflation indexes, and so its use should minimize disputes about
whether the inflator is sufficient.

The methodology used to compute the rates in this matrix replaces that used prior to 2015, which started with the
matrix of hourly rates developed in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in part,
rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985), and then adjusted
those rates based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Washington-Baltimore
(DC-MD-VA-WY) area. The USAO rates for years prior to and including 2014-15 remains the same as previously
published on the USAO’s public website,

The various “brackets” in the column headed “Experience” refer to the attorney’s years of experience practicing law.
Normally, an attorney’s experience will be calculated starting from the attorney's graduation from law school. Thus,
the “Less than 2 years” bracket is generally applicable to attorneys in their first and second years after graduation
from law school, and the “2-3 years” bracket generally becomes applicable on the second anniversary of the
attorney’s graduation (i.¢., at the beginning of the third year following law school). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371
An adjustment may be necessary, however, if the attorney's admission to the bar was significantly delayed or the
attorney did not otherwise follow a typical career progression. See, e.g., EPIC v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 999
F. Supp. 2d 61, 70-71 (D.D.C. 2013) (attorney not admitted to bar compensated at “Paralegals & Law Clerks” rate);
EPIC v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 982 F. Supp. 2d 56, 60-61 (D.D.C. 2013) (same). The various experience levels
were selected by relying on the levels in the ALM Legal Intelligence 2011 survey data. Although finer gradations in
experience level might yield different estimates of market rates, it is important to have statistically sufficient
sample sizes for each experience level. The experience categories in the current USAO Matrix are based on
statistically significant sample sizes for each experience level.

ALM Legal Intelligence’s 2011 survey data does not include rates for paralegals and law clerks. Unless and until
reliable survey data about actual paralegal/law clerk rates in the D.C. metropolitan area become available, the USAO
will compute the hourly rate for Paralegals & Law Clerks using the most recent historical rate from the USAO’s
former Laffey Matrix (i.¢., $150 for 2014-15) updated with the PPI-OL index. The formula is $150 multiplied by the
PPI-OL index for May in the year of the update, divided by 194.3 (the PPI-OL index for May 2014), and then
rounding to the nearest whole dollar (up if remainder is 50¢ or more).

The attorney’s fees matrices issued by the United States Attorney’s Office are intended to facilitate the settlement of
attorney’s fees claims in actions in which the United States may be liable to pay attorney’s fees to the prevailing party
and the United States Attorney’s Office is handling the matter. The United States Attorney’s Office is presently
working to develop a revised rate schedule, based upon current, realized rates paid to attorneys handling complex
federal litigation in the District of Columbia federal courts. This effort is motivated in part by the D.C. Circuit’s
urging the development of “a reliable assessment of fees charged for complex federal litigation in the District.” D.L.
v, District of Columbia, 924 F.3d 585, 595 (D.C. Cir. 2019). This new matrix should address the issues identified by
the majority in D.L., but it is expected that it will be some time before a new matrix can be prepared. In the interim,
for matters in which a prevailing party agrees to payment pursuant to the matrices issued by the United States
Attorney’s Office, the United States Attorney’s Office will not demand that a prevailing party offer the additional
evidence that the law otherwise requires. See Eley, 793 F.3d at 104 (quoting Covington v. District of Columbia, 57
F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) (requiring “evidence that [the] ‘requested rates are in line with those prevailing in
the community for similar services”).
EXHIBIT 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

--~000---

LOUIS PAYCHECK,

PLAINTIFF,

vs. CASE NO. 19-CIV-02595

PUNIT K. SARNA, et al.,

DEFENDANT (S),

AND RELATED CROSS~ACTION.

11
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
12

13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, JUDGE

14 DEPARTMENT 4, COURTROOM N

15 WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2021

17
APPEARANCE 8S:
18
FOR THE PLAINTIFF BY: RICHARD M. KELLY, ESQ.
19 KELLY LITIGATION GROUP, INC.
306 GORDON AVENUE
20 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010

21 FOR THE DEFENDANT
PUNIT SARNA: BY: MATTHEW A. HAULK, ESQ.
22 RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP
1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
23 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901

24 CROSS-DEFENDANT: BY: MARK ARONSON, ESQ.
SURETEC INDEMNITY
25
REPORTED BY: ROSARIO AYON, CLR, CSR 12372
26 OFFICIAL REPORTER

GOVERNMENT CODE SS 69954(d) RESTRICTS COPYING TRANSCRIPT 1
building.

Q What happened at that meeting?

A He wasn't very clear on what the problem was.

We had a series of discussions, and I had also spoken to

the fire department inspector and the Water Department

inspector, and it became clear to me that, even though

the fire sprinklers were installed correctly, the water

supply to the fire sprinklers, which was in the scope,

had not been done correctly

10 The water supply needed to be dedicated to the

Ld fire sprinklers separate from the water supply. This is

12 something that I had never heard of and tried to work it

13 out as best I could with Mr Paycheck.

14 Qo Were you able to work it out?

15 A No. I'm afraid I wasn't.

16 Q What happened then?

17 A We had a few more meetings. I arranged a

18 meeting with the fire department, the Water Department,

18 Mr. Paycheck, and his subcontractor, Delefano

20 (phonetic), to meet there. Mr. Paycheck was extremely

21 quiet during that meeting. There was some tension

22 between Delefano and Mr. Paycheck because their invoice

23 had not been paid. They left. And Mr. Paycheck became

24 very abusive to me.

25 I begged him to finish that project. My wife

26 was nine months pregnant. We were due to deliver that

GOVERNMENT CODE SS 69954(d) RESTRICTS COPYING TRANSCRIPT 154
week. I threw myself at his feet to finish the project.

He knew I was vulnerable and needed his help. This

project was a year over, over budget. I was at my wit's

end. And I was having a baby that week.

Q Did Mr. Paycheck help you?

A No, he did not.

Q What did he do?

A He insisted on me moving my car from the

driveway, and he left.
—aiee
10

3 MR. HAULK: No further questions.

14 THE COURT: Cross-examination?

15 MR. KELLY: Thank you.

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PUNIT SARNA

17 BY MR. KELLY:

18 Q Doctor, if I can direct your attention to

LS: Exhibit 4

20 A Yes, sir.

21 Q And these are your payments?

22 A Yes, they are.

23 Q Okay. And on the very first page, I see -- so

24 we're on the same page, Check 1190.

25 A Correct.

26 Q Is this the very first payment you made to

GOVERNMENT CODE SS 69954(d) RESTRICTS COPYING TRANSCRIPT 155
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I, ROSARIO AYON, an Official Court Reporter of

the Superior Court, State of California, County of San

Mateo, Certificate No. 12372; do hereby certify that the

10 foregoing Pages 1 through 160 comprise a full, true, and

11 correct computer-aided transcription of the proceedings

12: given and had in the above-entitled matter that was

13 reported by me on May 12, 2021, in Department 4, and

14 that the same is a correct transcript of the

15 proceedings.

18 DATED: MAY 21, 2021

23 Keane Sypn
ROSARIO AYON, CLR,“CSR #12372
24 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

GOVERNMENT CODE SS 69954(d) RESTRICTS COPYING TRANSCRIPT ! 61
EXHIBIT 3
Matthew A. Haulk
Ragghianti Freitas LLP
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901

Invoice submitted to:
Punit Sarna
c/o Electronic Delivery
punitsarna@yahoo.com

June 10, 2021

Professional Services

Hrs/Rate Amount
8/2/2019 Review correspondence from Bell Plumbing; Draft proposed reply e-mail; 0-40 T4000-
Draft e-mail to client; 350:00/hn-

8/4/2019 Review and prepare draft response to e-mail from Bell Plumbing; Prepare “O40 140:00—
conditional lien release and draft e-mail to client Tregarding the same; 350:00/hr—
8/5/2019 Review and respond to e-mail from Bell Plumbing; 0.20 70.00
350.00/hr
8/6/2019 Teleconference with client regarding history of communications with opposing 0.60 180.00
counsel. 300.00/hr
Review and respond to email from client and send e-mail to Bell Plumbing; 030~ 105:00—
350:00/nr~
8/7/2019 Review and respond to e-mails from client; (N/C) 0.20 NO CHARGE
350.00/hr
8/8/2019 Review original complaint; Draft First Amended Cross-Complaint included 20 1,120.00
causes of action under section 7031 (disgorgement), section 7159 (violation 350.00/hr
of HIC requirements and disgorgement), and Business and Professions
Codes section 17200 (unfair/unlawful/fraudulent business practices); Review
San Mateo fictitious business names filings;
8/9/2019 Draft e-mail to G. Dixon (Bell Plumbing) re settlement of claims; Telephone USs0- -475:00-—
call with G. Dixon and Maribel (Bell Plumbing Staff); Draft e-mails to G, Dixon 350:00/hr-
and Maribel; Draft update e-mails to client;

Review client project records; Draft Special Interrogatories, Set One; Draft 3.40 1,190.00
Requests for Production, Set One; Review and revise Requests for 350.00/hr
Admissions, Draft Demand for Bill of Particulars;
Punit Sarna Page 2

Hrs/Rate Amount
8/13/2019 Review and revise First Amended Cross-Complaint; Draft e-mail to client re: 0.70 245.00
status update; 350.00/hr
Telephone call with client; 0.40 140,00
350.00/hr
8/14/2019 Telephone call with client; 0.50 NO CHARGE
350.00/hr
Prepare amended complaint; Prepare e-mail to client; 0:90 315:00-
350:00/nr
af “8/15/2019 Review pre-litigation correspondences between counsel: review pleadings; 1.40 420.00
J review case law construing scope and definition of “substantially related" for
purposes of disqualification statutory scheme.
300.00/hr

ae srier2019 Research and review legal authority construing attorney disqualification 2.30 690.00
statutory scheme; begin memorandum of points and authorities in support of 300.00/hr
motion to disqualify.

8/19/2019 Prepare motion for leave to file First Amended Cross-Complaint and First
Amended Answer,
8/20/2019 Review legal authority construing scope and definition of confidential 1.80 540.00
ayheee information for purposes of attorney disqualification; prepare client declaration
in support of motion to disqualify; continue memorandum of authorities in
300,00/hr
support of motion to disqualify.

tS
Review legal authority construing California Rules of Professional Conduct, 0.90 270.00
specifically in context of duties owed to prospective clients: review authority 300.00/hr
construing vicarious disqualification; continue memorandum of points and
authorities in support of motion to disqualify.

Review and revise discovery requests; Review and finalize motion to file first 1.20 420.00
ee
amended cross-complaint and first amended answer; 350.00/hr

ww 8/21/2019 Complete legal research; complete moving papers and supporting
declarations; prepare motion to disqualify opposing counsel forfiling.
1.70
300.00/hr
510.00

8/23/2019 Draft update to client re: motion to amend, motion to disqualify, and discovery; 0.20 70.00
350.00/hr
8/27/2019 Review order re: rescheduling of management conference and draft e-mail to 20 70,00
client re the same; 350.00/hr
9/9/2019 Telephone call with client; Telephone call with opposing counsel; 0.30 105.00
350.00/hr
9/11/2019 Review and respond to e-mail from P. Sarna regarding settlement discussions 0.30 105.00
and settlement strategy; 350.00/hr
Review and respond to e-mail from opposing counsel; Telephone call with 105.00
client; 350.00/hr
Punit Sarna Page 3

Hrs/Rate Amount
9/19/2019 Review CCP 998 from contractor; draft e-mail to client; Telephone call with 0.40 140.00
client; 350.00/hr
9/20/2019 Prepare CCP 998 to contractor; Draft e-mail to client; 1,00 350.00
350.00/hr
10/8/2019 Review tentative rulings; Draft update e-mail to client; 0.20 70,00
350.00/hr

10/15/2019 Review correspondence from client; Review register of actions regarding 0.20 70.00
status of pleadings/filings; Draft update e-mail to client; 350.00/hr
10/28/2019 Telephone call with client; Exchange correspondence with client; 0.50 175.00
350.00/hr
11/5/2019 Review case management statement from L. Paycheck; Prepare case 0.30 105.00
management statement for clients; 350.00/hr

360,00/
11/6/2019 Review document production, special interrogatory responses, and form 525.00
interrogatory responses, Prepare meet and confer letter (pre-motion to
compel) to R. Kelly; Draft update e-mail to client;
11/11/2019 Review discovery responses and draft meet and confer letter to R. Kelly; 1.00 350.00
350.00/hr
11/12/2019 Telephone call with client; 0.40 140.00
350.00/hr
11/13/2019 Review and revise letter to opposing counsel; 0.40 140.00
350.00/hr
11/20/2019 Telephone call with client regarding Case Management Conference and 0.40 140.00
Mediation; 350.00/hr
Prepare for and attend case management conference; Draft update e-mail to 350.00
client; 350.00/hr
11/24/2019 Review meet and confer correspondence from R. Kelly; Review discover 0,50 175.00
requests to R. Kelly; Draft final meet and confer demand to R. Kelly regarding 350.00/hr
production of documents;

11/27/2019 Review interrogatories from L. Paycheck; Draft e-mail to client; 0.30 105.00
350.00/hr
12/3/2012 Review complaint and cross-complaint; Review discovery responses from 5.00 1,750.00
Louis Paycheck; Begin to draft memorandum of points and authorities in 350,00/hr
support of motion to compel further production and further responses to
special interrogatories;

12/4/2019 Prepare separate statement for form interrogatories in support of motion to 1.00 350.00
compel; 350.00/hr
Punit Sarma Page 4

_Hrs/Rate Amount

12/4/2019 Draft and revise Memorandum of Points and Authorities for motion to compel; 3.00 1,050.00
Begin to draft Request of Judicial Notice and Declaration in support of Motion; 350.00/hr
12/5/2019 Review Paycheck's discovery responses; draft separate statement for Special 2.00 200.00
Interrogatories in support of motion to compel; 100.00/hr
12/6/2019 Continue to draft separate statement for Special interrogatories; 1.00 100.00
100.00/hr
12/9/2019 Review, revise and finalize motion to compel, including memorandum of 1.20 420.00
Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and Declaration of 350.00/hr
Matthew Haulk;

Review and revise separate statement for special interrogatories in support of 1.00 350.00
to compel; 350.00/hr
12/12/2019 Telephone call with client; (N/C) 0.50 NO CHARGE
350,00/hr
12/13/2019 Review project records and prepare responses to special interrogatories, Set 1.50 525.00
ne; 350,00/hr
12/19/2019 Telephone call with client; Review and revise interrogatory responses; Draft 1.60 560.00
e-mail to client; 350.00/hr
1/13/2020 Telephone call with client; Telephone call with mediator; 0.30 105.00
360.00/hr
1/27/2020 Review Opposition, Objections, and Declaration of R. Kelly; Begin to draft 2.50 875.00
reply to Opposition; 350.00/hr
1/28/2020 Continue to draft reply brief; 1.00 350.00
350.00/hr
1/29/2020 Draft and revise Reply brief; 4.50 1,578.00
350.00/hr
2/5/2020 Telephone call with client and prepare for hearing; 0.50 175.00
350.00/hr
2/6/2020 Draft meet and confer e-mail to R. Kelly; 0.40 140.00
350,00/hr
Prepare for and attend hearing on Motion to Compel; Telephone call with 2.50 875.00
client; 350.00/hr
2/10/2020 Draft second meet and confer e-mail to R. Kelly; 0.30 105,00
350.00/hr

2/11/2020 Prepare proposed order, draft letter, and draft e-mail to opposing counsel; 0.70 245.00
350.00/hr
Punit Sarna 5
Page

Hrs/Rate Amount
2112/2020 Draft e-mail to R. Kelly; Telephone call with R. Kelly; revise proposed order: 0.50 175.00
350.00/nr
2/13/2020 Prepare cover letter to court; 0.20 NO CHARGE
350.00/hr
2/26/2020 Review amended discovery responses; Draft third meet and confer e-mail to 0.40 140.00
opposing couns

Case Info

Judge

Fineman, Nancy L. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 17, 2021

Case Filing Date

May 10, 2019

County

Parties

DOES 1-30, INCLUSIVE Defendant
HAULK, MATTHEW A Attorney
HAULK, MATTHEW A Attorney for the Defendant
HOWARD, ELMIRA R. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KELLY, RICHARD M. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KELLY, RICHARD M. Attorney for the Plaintiff
PAYCHECK, LOUIS Cross Defendant
PAYCHECK, LOUIS Plaintiff
ROES 1-50, inclusive Cross Defendant
SARNA, PUJA Defendant
SARNA, PUNIT K. Cross Complainant
SARNA, PUNIT K. Defendant
SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY Cross Defendant (participant)
SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corp Cross Defendant
Michael Mengarelli Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RICHARD KELLY Attorney
Richard MacManus Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Ardijanto Attorneys for Defendants
Jose Herrera Attorneys for Defendants
Matthew Armanino Attorneys for Defendants
Grant Baker Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cathleen Curl Attorney
Michael Allen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Assaad Stephan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mark Aronson Attorney
Jess Millikan Attorneys for Defendants
David Moutoux Attorneys for Defendants
William Fulton Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Benjamin Allen Attorney

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

Motion-Secondary: LOUIS PAYCHECK vs. PUNIT K. SARNA, et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties