Preview
Kyle
Law
Corporation
STEPHAN E. KYLE (SBN 158075)
ANDREW H. WINETROUB (SBN 291847)
KYLE LAW CORPORATION
7 7 . ELECTRONICALLY
230 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94111 FILED
Telephone: (415) 839-8100 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: _(415) 839-8189 : 01/29/2016
Email: skyle@kylelawcorp.com : Clerk of the Court
BY-MADONNA CARAN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Deputy a
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 REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.,
CASE NO. CGC-11-514980
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE
REALTY, DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2016
TIME: 1:30 P.M.
Defendant. DEPT.: 503
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Jason Everett Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. (collectively,
“Thompson”) hereby submit this reply (the “Reply”) in response to Defendant Dean Gregory
Asimos’s (“Asimos”) Opposition To Motion For Attorney’s Fees (the “Opposition”, that was filed
lon Janary, 27, 2016.1
In the Opposition, Asimos misconstrues the significance of the Judgment of Contempt
| It is noted that the Opposition was filed only six (6) court days prior to the hearing date, which is beyond
the nine (9) court day prescribed deadline for filing papers opposing a motion. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §
1005(b). Plaintiffs learned of the filing of the Opposition on January 28, 2016 and are filing this Reply one
(1) day later.
-l-
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
CGC-11-514980Kyle
Law
Corporation
27
28
entered against him while also failing to accurately describe the scope of the contempt proceedings. |
As such, the arguments in the Opposition are unavailing in the face of the specifically detailed
attorneys’ fees sought by Thompson in the Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”).
ARGUMENT
I. Arguments Regarding Appeal and Re-Arguing Merits of Contempt Are Irrelevant
Asimos argues that his appeal of the Judgment entered against him on August 23, 2013 is
somehow relevant to the Motion. As this Court has already found, the performance of Asimos’
obligations under the Permanent Injunction were not stayed by Asimos’ appeal of the Judgment and,
as such, the Court has maintained jurisdiction over Asimos regarding the Permanent Injunction at
all times. See Order of Contempt, entered on November 13, 2015, at 2:14-19. Therefore, Asimos’
arguments regarding the appeal are inapplicable to the Motion.
In addition, Asimos attempts to re-argue the merits of the Court’s Judgment of Contempt in |
the Opposition. The arguments advanced by Asimos in that regard are equally irrelevant to the
Motion before the Court.
II. Rates Of Attorneys and Paralegals Are Reasonable
Asimos alleges that the Motion fails to establish a basis for reasonable hourly rates for
attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area. To the contrary, the Motion and its supporting Declaration
(the “Declaration”) clearly state the results of Thompson’s counsel’s research into the prevailing
rates in the community for attorneys of similar skill and experience. Further, the focus in the
Opposition on the reasonable hourly rate in the community ignores the fact that Thompson is not
seeking attorneys’ fees equal to those that would be reasonable locally, but rather the significantly
reduced rates actually paid by Thompson.
The hourly rates for Thompson’s counsel detailed in the Motion and the Declaration are well
supported. In the Opposition, Asimos fails to provide any plausible basis on which the rates charged
by Kyle Law Corporation would be unreasonable for attorneys in this community.”
? The reasonableness of the rates charged by Thompson’s attorneys—$375.00 per hour for Mr. Kyle
and $195.00 per hour for Mr. Winetroub—is further supported by the filings of Asimos’ own
counsel in this case. In her signed Declaration opposing the initial Motion For Order To Show
Cause re Contempt, counsel for Asimos stated, “My regular hourly rate for litigation of this nature
is $350.00 per hour. This rate is comparable to other attorneys of the same skill level in this
geographic area.” Declaration In Support of Dean Gregory Asimos’s Opposition To Motion For
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
CGC-11-514980Kyle
Law
Corporation
Tl. uantity Of Hours Claimed Are Reasonable and Supported
Asimos’ argument for the denial of fees for the hours worked by Mr. Winetroub and Mr.
Corpuz in these contempt proceedings is baseless. Both the Motion and the Declaration clearly
establish that Mr. Winetroub and Mr. Corpuz worked directly on matters involved in these
proceedings. Moreover, Mr. Kyle’s signed Declaration and its supporting exhibit carefully
document the time spent by each employee of Mr. Kyle’s firm in working on this matter.
Asimos also mischaracterizes the scope of the legal work required by these contempt
proceedings. As opposed to the Motion and the Declaration, which chronicle the events of the
contempt proceedings in detail, the Opposition generalizes the work performed and fails to
distinguish between the five (5) hearings’ on the matter and the numerous filings involved.
In particular, Asimos incorrectly states that Thompson’s counsel billed 65.8 hours for
analysis and preparation of the Motion For Order To Show Cause re Contempt. It is unclear
precisely which time entries form the basis of that total cited in the Opposition, but it appears to
encompass time spent by Thompson’s counsel on multiple filings in these proceedings that extended
well beyond the initiating motion. Asimos’ assertion that those hours all went toward “a seven page
motion” and “a four page declaration” is unfounded. Asimos is similarly off base in alleging that
Thompson’s counsel billed 49.8 hours preparing for the hearing on the Motion To Show Cause re
Contempt. It appears that Asimos may, albeit erroneously, be presenting hours spent by
Thompson’s counsel in preparing for five (5) separate hearings as work for a single hearing. These
characterizations fail to properly depict the prolonged nature of the contempt proceedings by
inaccurately casting it in terms of the initiating motion filed by Thompson.
Asa further example, Asimos alleges that the number of hours spent by Thompson’s counsel
on the Reply to Asimos’ Opposition to the Motion For Order To Show Cause re Contempt (the
“Opposition to the OSC Motion”) is excessive. Such a claim is misleading, and indicative of the
shortcomings in Asimos’ arguments. Asimos’ original Opposition to the OSC Motion cited eighteen
Order To Show Cause re Contempt, filed September 14, 2015, at 4 6. For Asimos to contest the
reasonableness of Mr. Kyle’s charged hourly rate of $375.00, when he has many more years of
experience than attorney Barsotti and yet seeks an hourly rate of only $25.00 more per hour, reveals
the disingenuousness of the arguments advanced in the Opposition.
3 The hearing on this Motion will be the sixth hearing related to these contempt proceedings.
3-
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
CGC-11-514980Kyle
Law
Corporation
(18) cases and three (3) separate statutes. Thompson’s counsel was required to read and Shepardize
each case, and analyze the holdings in light of the facts of this matter. Accordingly, Asimos’
contention that 20.8 hours were billed for responding to a four (4) page Opposition to the OSC
Motion presents the facts in a skewed manner that disguises the amount of work thrust upon
Thompson’s counsel by Asimos’ own filings.
Taken together, Asimos’ arguments that the number of hours expended are excessive are
undermined by the detail provided in the Motion and the supporting Declaration.
CONCLUSION
The Motion seeks an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the work performed
by Thompson’s counsel in connection with these contempt proceedings, dating back to late July.
These proceedings have spanned six (6) months, six (6) separate hearings including the hearing on
the Motion, and hundreds of pages of filed documents. The Motion and the Declaration are
transparent in detailing the hours spent by each attorney in representing Thompson and the
substance of each of those hours billed. The rates at which Thompson was billed for legal work
are undoubtedly reasonable when assessed against the prevailing rates in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that their Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs be granted in
its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: January 29, 2016 KYLE LAW CORPORATION
oe EY
STEP! EK .
AND! H. WIXETROUB
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and
WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
4.
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
CGC-11-514980Kyle
Law
Corporation
Thompson v. Asimos
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-514980
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, state:
I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 230 California Street, Suite 600,
San Francisco, California 94111. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco. I am
over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. On the date set forth below, I served
the foregoing documents described as follows:
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
on the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows:
Jessica R. Barsotti, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602
Email: barsottilaw@gmail.com
[x] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL —I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, to wit, that
correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the
ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing
this date, following ordinary business practices.
[] BY PERSONAL SERVICE — Following ordinary business practices, I caused to be served,
by hand delivery, such envelope(s) by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s).
[] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL ~ I caused such envelope to be delivered by a commercial carrier
service for overnight delivery to the office(s) of the addressee(s).
[] BY FACSIMILE ~ I caused said document to be transmitted by Facsimile machine to the
number indicated after the address(es) noted above.
[x] BY EMAIL - I caused said document to be transmitted by email, as an electronic file in
Adobe PDF format, to the email address indicated after the address(es) noted above.
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 this date in San Francisco, California.
l ‘ANDREW H. Aen
5-
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
CGC-11-514980
Dated: January 29, 2016
Preview
Kyle Law Corporation STEPHAN E. KYLE (SBN 158075) ANDREW H. WINETROUB (SBN 291847) KYLE LAW CORPORATION 7 7 . ELECTRONICALLY 230 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 FILED Telephone: (415) 839-8100 Superior Court of California, Facsimile: _(415) 839-8189 : 01/29/2016 Email: skyle@kylelawcorp.com : Clerk of the Court BY-MADONNA CARAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs Deputy a 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 REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC., CASE NO. CGC-11-514980 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE REALTY, DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2016 TIME: 1:30 P.M. Defendant. DEPT.: 503 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Jason Everett Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. (collectively, “Thompson”) hereby submit this reply (the “Reply”) in response to Defendant Dean Gregory Asimos’s (“Asimos”) Opposition To Motion For Attorney’s Fees (the “Opposition”, that was filed lon Janary, 27, 2016.1 In the Opposition, Asimos misconstrues the significance of the Judgment of Contempt | It is noted that the Opposition was filed only six (6) court days prior to the hearing date, which is beyond the nine (9) court day prescribed deadline for filing papers opposing a motion. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Plaintiffs learned of the filing of the Opposition on January 28, 2016 and are filing this Reply one (1) day later. -l- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS CGC-11-514980Kyle Law Corporation 27 28 entered against him while also failing to accurately describe the scope of the contempt proceedings. | As such, the arguments in the Opposition are unavailing in the face of the specifically detailed attorneys’ fees sought by Thompson in the Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). ARGUMENT I. Arguments Regarding Appeal and Re-Arguing Merits of Contempt Are Irrelevant Asimos argues that his appeal of the Judgment entered against him on August 23, 2013 is somehow relevant to the Motion. As this Court has already found, the performance of Asimos’ obligations under the Permanent Injunction were not stayed by Asimos’ appeal of the Judgment and, as such, the Court has maintained jurisdiction over Asimos regarding the Permanent Injunction at all times. See Order of Contempt, entered on November 13, 2015, at 2:14-19. Therefore, Asimos’ arguments regarding the appeal are inapplicable to the Motion. In addition, Asimos attempts to re-argue the merits of the Court’s Judgment of Contempt in | the Opposition. The arguments advanced by Asimos in that regard are equally irrelevant to the Motion before the Court. II. Rates Of Attorneys and Paralegals Are Reasonable Asimos alleges that the Motion fails to establish a basis for reasonable hourly rates for attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area. To the contrary, the Motion and its supporting Declaration (the “Declaration”) clearly state the results of Thompson’s counsel’s research into the prevailing rates in the community for attorneys of similar skill and experience. Further, the focus in the Opposition on the reasonable hourly rate in the community ignores the fact that Thompson is not seeking attorneys’ fees equal to those that would be reasonable locally, but rather the significantly reduced rates actually paid by Thompson. The hourly rates for Thompson’s counsel detailed in the Motion and the Declaration are well supported. In the Opposition, Asimos fails to provide any plausible basis on which the rates charged by Kyle Law Corporation would be unreasonable for attorneys in this community.” ? The reasonableness of the rates charged by Thompson’s attorneys—$375.00 per hour for Mr. Kyle and $195.00 per hour for Mr. Winetroub—is further supported by the filings of Asimos’ own counsel in this case. In her signed Declaration opposing the initial Motion For Order To Show Cause re Contempt, counsel for Asimos stated, “My regular hourly rate for litigation of this nature is $350.00 per hour. This rate is comparable to other attorneys of the same skill level in this geographic area.” Declaration In Support of Dean Gregory Asimos’s Opposition To Motion For -2- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS CGC-11-514980Kyle Law Corporation Tl. uantity Of Hours Claimed Are Reasonable and Supported Asimos’ argument for the denial of fees for the hours worked by Mr. Winetroub and Mr. Corpuz in these contempt proceedings is baseless. Both the Motion and the Declaration clearly establish that Mr. Winetroub and Mr. Corpuz worked directly on matters involved in these proceedings. Moreover, Mr. Kyle’s signed Declaration and its supporting exhibit carefully document the time spent by each employee of Mr. Kyle’s firm in working on this matter. Asimos also mischaracterizes the scope of the legal work required by these contempt proceedings. As opposed to the Motion and the Declaration, which chronicle the events of the contempt proceedings in detail, the Opposition generalizes the work performed and fails to distinguish between the five (5) hearings’ on the matter and the numerous filings involved. In particular, Asimos incorrectly states that Thompson’s counsel billed 65.8 hours for analysis and preparation of the Motion For Order To Show Cause re Contempt. It is unclear precisely which time entries form the basis of that total cited in the Opposition, but it appears to encompass time spent by Thompson’s counsel on multiple filings in these proceedings that extended well beyond the initiating motion. Asimos’ assertion that those hours all went toward “a seven page motion” and “a four page declaration” is unfounded. Asimos is similarly off base in alleging that Thompson’s counsel billed 49.8 hours preparing for the hearing on the Motion To Show Cause re Contempt. It appears that Asimos may, albeit erroneously, be presenting hours spent by Thompson’s counsel in preparing for five (5) separate hearings as work for a single hearing. These characterizations fail to properly depict the prolonged nature of the contempt proceedings by inaccurately casting it in terms of the initiating motion filed by Thompson. Asa further example, Asimos alleges that the number of hours spent by Thompson’s counsel on the Reply to Asimos’ Opposition to the Motion For Order To Show Cause re Contempt (the “Opposition to the OSC Motion”) is excessive. Such a claim is misleading, and indicative of the shortcomings in Asimos’ arguments. Asimos’ original Opposition to the OSC Motion cited eighteen Order To Show Cause re Contempt, filed September 14, 2015, at 4 6. For Asimos to contest the reasonableness of Mr. Kyle’s charged hourly rate of $375.00, when he has many more years of experience than attorney Barsotti and yet seeks an hourly rate of only $25.00 more per hour, reveals the disingenuousness of the arguments advanced in the Opposition. 3 The hearing on this Motion will be the sixth hearing related to these contempt proceedings. 3- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS CGC-11-514980Kyle Law Corporation (18) cases and three (3) separate statutes. Thompson’s counsel was required to read and Shepardize each case, and analyze the holdings in light of the facts of this matter. Accordingly, Asimos’ contention that 20.8 hours were billed for responding to a four (4) page Opposition to the OSC Motion presents the facts in a skewed manner that disguises the amount of work thrust upon Thompson’s counsel by Asimos’ own filings. Taken together, Asimos’ arguments that the number of hours expended are excessive are undermined by the detail provided in the Motion and the supporting Declaration. CONCLUSION The Motion seeks an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the work performed by Thompson’s counsel in connection with these contempt proceedings, dating back to late July. These proceedings have spanned six (6) months, six (6) separate hearings including the hearing on the Motion, and hundreds of pages of filed documents. The Motion and the Declaration are transparent in detailing the hours spent by each attorney in representing Thompson and the substance of each of those hours billed. The rates at which Thompson was billed for legal work are undoubtedly reasonable when assessed against the prevailing rates in the San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that their Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs be granted in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, DATED: January 29, 2016 KYLE LAW CORPORATION oe EY STEP! EK . AND! H. WIXETROUB Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. 4. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS CGC-11-514980Kyle Law Corporation Thompson v. Asimos San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-514980 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, state: I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 230 California Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94111. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents described as follows: PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS on the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Jessica R. Barsotti, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602 Email: barsottilaw@gmail.com [x] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL —I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, to wit, that correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing this date, following ordinary business practices. [] BY PERSONAL SERVICE — Following ordinary business practices, I caused to be served, by hand delivery, such envelope(s) by hand this date to the offices of the addressee(s). [] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL ~ I caused such envelope to be delivered by a commercial carrier service for overnight delivery to the office(s) of the addressee(s). [] BY FACSIMILE ~ I caused said document to be transmitted by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted above. [x] BY EMAIL - I caused said document to be transmitted by email, as an electronic file in Adobe PDF format, to the email address indicated after the address(es) noted above. 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 this date in San Francisco, California. l ‘ANDREW H. Aen 5- PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS CGC-11-514980 Dated: January 29, 2016