Upload
lara-pearson
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
1/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO TO DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES
ERIK L. JACKSON (State Bar No. 166010)COZEN & OCONNOR601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700Los Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 892-7961Fax: (866) [email protected]
TODD J. WEGLARZ (pro hac vice)Law Offices of Todd J. Weglarz, PLLC30903 Northwestern Highway, Suite 250Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334Telephone: (248) 539-9081Fax: (248) [email protected] for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER,
Plaintiff,
v
THE HURT LOCKER, LLC, MARKBOAL, KATHRYN BIGELOW, GREGSHAPIRO, NICOLAS CHARTIER,TONY MARK, DONALL McCUSKER,SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC,GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP,FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.,KINGSGATE FILMS, INC., andPLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Jointlyand Severally,
Defendants.
)))))))))))
))))))))
Case No.: 2:10-cv-09034-JHN(JCx)
PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIOTO DEFEDATS MOTIOSFOR ATTOREY FEES
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#:2033
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
2/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO TO DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEESi
Table of ContentsPage
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
II. LAW & ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 1
A. LAW .................................................................................................................. 1
B. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 2
1. Defendants Fail to Present Evidence Establishing Their RequestedHourly Rates Are the Prevailing Hourly Rate in this District .......................... 2
2. Defendants Requested Hours Are Excessive and Unreasonable ...................... 4
3. Reasonable Attorney Fees Ruling on a Recent, anti-SLAPP, HighProfile Case Involving Counsel Herein Should be Followed, AndIllustrate the excessiveness of Defendants' Fee Requests ................................ 6
4. Objections to Defendants' Itemized Billing Records ........................................ 7
5. All Hours Billed Regarding Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion forAdditional Time to Respond to Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion ................... 8
6. All Hours Billed Regarding Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief BasedUpon Authorities Presented to the Court During Oral Argument .................... 8
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 11
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 14 Page ID#:2034
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
3/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO TO DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEESii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor,
165 Cal. App. 4th 1315 (2008) ..................................................................................4, 5, 7
Fein v. Kesterson,2010 Lexis 128489 (C.D. Ca. 2010) ................................................................................4
Jackson v. Yarbray,179 Cal. App. 4th 75 (2009) ...........................................................................................1, 4
Kearney v. Foley and Lardner,553 F.Supp.2d 1178 (S.D. Cal. 2008)......................................................................1, 2, 3
Ketchum v. Moses,24 Cal. 4th 1122 (2001) ...............................................................................................4, 5, 7
McCown v. City of Fontana,550 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................2
Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg,166 Cal. App. 4th 772 (2008) ............................................................................................1
Ravet v. Stern,2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7958 (2010) ...............................................................................2, 3
Serrano v.Unruh,32 Cal. 3d 621 (1982) ..........................................................................................................5
STATUTES
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 423.16(c) .............................................................................................1
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 423.16(c)(1) ........................................................................................1
OTHERAUTHORITIES
FRCP 12(b)(6) .........................................................................................................................6, 9
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 14 Page ID#:2035
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
4/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES1
PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO TO DEFEDATS
MOTIOS FOR ATTOREY FEES
I. ITRODUCTIOPursuant to the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike under the
Anti-SLAPP statute, Defendants have filed Motions for an Award of Attorneys Fees
under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 423.16(c). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants
Motions should be denied or, in the alternative, the requested fees should be reduced
significantly.
II. LAW & ARGUMETA. LAWThough Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 423.16(c)(1) provides that a prevailing defendant
shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs, such an award is
subject to preconditions and limitations. California case law makes clear that "absent
circumstances rendering an award unjust, the fee should ordinarily include
compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to
[obtaining] the fee [award]."Kearney v. Foley and Lardner, 553 F.Supp.2d 1178,
1181-1182 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Serrano v.Unruh, 32 Cal. 3d 621, 624 (1982))
(emphasis added).
The recoverable attorney fees and costs are limited to only those hours
reasonably expended on the anti-SLAPP motion, and not the entire litigation. The
trial court is not constrained by the amount sought by the successful moving party.
Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg, 166 Cal. App. 4th 772, 784 (2008); Jackson v.
Yarbray, 179 Cal. App. 4th 75 (2009). A reasonable award of attorney fees under
Anti-SLAPP is determined by reference to the lodestar figure, which is the number of
hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. A "reasonable
hourly rate" is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work. Kearney v.
Foley and Lardner, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2008).
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 14 Page ID#:2036
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
5/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES2
The amount of fees to be awarded are within the complete discretion of the
court:
"The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trialcourt, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the natureof the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience andexpertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. [Citation omitted.]The Court must have "substantial evidence" to support the fee award.[Citations omitted]. The party petitioning for attorneys' fees necessarily
bears the burden of persuasion on the elements of that claim. [Citationomitted]. An attorney fee award should be reduced if claimed hours are"excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary," [quoting from Hensleyv. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434,103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983)].Reasonableness depends in part on "the success of the attorney's efforts."[Citation omitted].
Kearney v. Foley and Lardner, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2008).
When awarding reasonable attorney fees, the ninth circuit requires a specific
explanation as to why certain fees were awarded, reduced, or rejected:
"Once the district court completes its analysis of the final lodestaramount, it must explain how it arrived at its determination with sufficientspecificity to permit an appellate court to determine whether the districtcourt abused its discretion in the way the analysis was undertaken."
McCown v. City of Fontana, 550 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 2009).
B. ARGUMET1. Defendants Fail to Present Evidence Establishing Their
Requested Hourly Rates Are the Prevailing Hourly Rate in thisDistrict
To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the Court looks to the rate prevailing
in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill,
experience, and reputation. Ravet v. Stern, case no 09- Civ-5575, 2010 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 7958, *5 (February 1, 2010, S.D.N.Y.) According toRavet, in this case, the
relevant community is the Central District of California because it is "the forum in
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 14 Page ID#:2037
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
6/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES3
which the district court sits." Id. at 5-6.1 The burden is on the party requesting
attorneys' fees to "produce satisfactory evidence."Id., at 6 (quotingBlum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). Evidence that the Court should consider includes
"[a]ffidavits of the [movant's] attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees
in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a
rate for the [movant's] attorney."Id., (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps
Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990)). InKearny, the federal district court
denied a prevailing anti-SLAPP Defendant's Motion for attorney fees in its entirety
(without prejudice) when the hourly rate upon which the motion was based was only
presented with the movant attorney's declaration. Kearny, 553 F. Supp. 2d at 1186-
87.
Here, Defendants' attorneys request an hourly rate of $450.00 on most of the
hours submitted. In support of these rates, Defendants only offer the Declarations of
the movant attorneys, all of which represent that they billed at the rate of $450/hour,
and conclude that this rate represents the Los Angeles market rate. [Doc 132-1, 133-
1, & 134-1]. Aside from the movant attorneys' declarations, Defendants fail to submit
any evidence establishing the prevailing hourly attorney rate for attorneys performingsimilar work in the Central District of California. Because Defendants failed to satisfy
carry their burden of proof in establishing the prevailing market rate for the Central
District, this court should deny Defendants' Motions.2
Furthermore, evidence shows that Defendants' requested hourly rate of $450.00
is above the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys. Studies show that the average billing
rate for California firms is just above $300/hour. [Decl TJW, Doc 135-1]. Consistent
with this average California billing rate is a recent California Superior Court ruling on
1 Citing Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir 2008) (quotingBarjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th
Cir. 1997).2 Defendants likewise fail to satisfy their burden of proof in establishing the prevailing market rate for attorney Wu, an
attorney with just 12-18 months experience at the time of her billings (billed at $375/hour, Doc 134-1).
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 6 of 14 Page ID#:2038
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
7/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES4
a high profile, Anti-SLAPP ruling, awarding some of the same attorneys herein an
hourly rate of $300/hour.3 [Decl TJW, Doc 135-1]. Similarly, in Christian Research
Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1315 (2008), the California Court of Appeals
determined that an attorney hourly rate of $300 was reasonable for an prevailing anti-
SLAPP Defendant. Id., at 1324. And inFein v. Kesterson, Case No. 10-cv-02048,
2010 Lexis 128489 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 23 2010), the district court ruled that $350/hour
was a reasonable hourly rate for a seasoned Los Angeles attorney specializing in
Anti-SLAPP and defamation law, who also taught law school courses at Pepperdine
Law School.
Because Defendants failed to present evidence satisfying their burden of proof
that their requested hourly rates represent the prevailing hourly rate in this district,
Defendants' Motions should be denied. In the alternative, at the very least, this court
should reduce the hourly rates as follows:
Attorney Kinsella and Attorney Reynolds - $300/hour
Attorney Halberstadter - $300/hour
Attorney Gorry and Attorney Hill - $300/hour
Attorney Joseph - $200/hour
2. Defendants Requested Hours Are Excessive and UnreasonableCollectively, Defendants request the Court to enter a judgment against Plaintiff
in the exorbitant amount of $220,000. Defendants attach a host of itemized billing
records to support these attorney fees and costs. However, as explained above, the
court is not constrained by the amount sought by the successful moving party, and the
prevailing party is entitled only to a reasonable award, based upon the reasonable
time expended on the actual anti-SLAPP motion, not the entire litigation. See
3 On May 11, 2011, in the case ofThe Revenue Resource Group v. Dash Dolls(The Kardashians), SuperiorCourt Case No. 11CECG00058, California Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton granted Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion, dismissing Plaintiffs 62 page, nine count Complaint, and awarded Defendants attorney fees in the total
amount of $6,825.00, based in part upon an hourly rate of $300 for attorney Jeremiah Reynolds (who is counsel for
Defendants Boal / Bigelow herein). [Decl. TJW, Doc 135-1].
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 7 of 14 Page ID#:2039
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
8/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES5
Jackson, 179 Cal. App. 4th 75; Christian Research, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 870, and
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133 (2001).
The prevailing Defendants seeking fees and costs have the burden of
establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended
The court may require a defendant to produce records sufficient to provide a proper
basis for determining how much time was spent on particular claims. The court also
may properly reduce compensation on account of any failure to maintain appropriate
time records. Christian Research, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 870.
"Padded" fees, in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts, are not subject to
compensation. Id. at 871. "To the extent a trial court is concerned that a particular
award is excessive, it has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an
unreasonable fee altogether." Ketchum, 24 Cal. 4th at 1138. "A fee request that
appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to
reduce the award or deny one altogether." Christian Research, 165 Cal. App. 4th at
871 (quoting Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal. 3d 621, 635 (1982). The Serrano court has
authorized the denial of a fee request in its entirety on the ground of an unreasonable
request and inadequate documentation. Serrano, 32 Cal.3d at 635, n. 21.In Christian Research Institute, the trial court acted within its discretion in
awarding attorney fees to a prevailing anti-SLAPP defendant by reducing the number
of compensable hours from over 600 hours, as requested by defendant, to 71
(Defendant requested $250,000 in fees; the court reduced to $21,300) , where defense
counsel's billing entries were vague and block billed,4 and included many time entries
devoted to matters other than the motion to strike. Id. The Christian Research panel
justified this reduction based upon the lack of credibility of the submitted time entries:
4 Generally, block billing can "obscure [] the nature of some of the work claimed" and "exacerbate [ ] the vagueness of
counsel's fee request." Christian Research, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 874. Because "block billing makes it more difficult to
determine how much time was spent on particular activities," the Ninth Circuit has held that it will not "quarrel with the
district court's authority to reduce hours that are billed in block format." Welch v.Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d
942, 948 (9th Cir.2007)
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 8 of 14 Page ID#:2040
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
9/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES6
"The fee request included, for example, billings for obtaining the docketat the inception of the case, obtaining unspecified but "numerous courtdocuments," and attending the trial court's mandatory case managementconference - all of which would have been incurred whether or not[Defendant] filed the motion to strike."
Id. at 1325.For the reasons more fully explained below, Defendants fee requests are
excessive and unreasonable, and should be denied outright, or significantly reduced.
3. Reasonable Attorney Fees Ruling on a Recent, anti-SLAPP,High Profile Case Involving Counsel Herein Should beFollowed, And Illustrate the excessiveness of Defendants' FeeRequests
Defendant Boal's / Bigelow's counsel, Mr. Reynolds and the Kinsella law firm,
recently received an anti-SLAPP attorney fees award of $6,825.00 while representingthe Kardashians in the case ofThe Revenue Resource Group v. Dash Dolls, Superior
Court Case No. 11CECG00058. In Dash Dolls, Plaintiff debit card company filed a
sixty-two (62) page, nine (9) count breach of contract action against the Kardashians.
Defendants moved to strike under anti-SLAPP, and on May 21, 2011, California
Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton granted Defendants' Anti-SLAPP Motion and
awarded said attorney fees award, after reducing the requested hourly attorney rate
from $595 and $450 to $350 and $300 respectively. [Decl TJW, Doc 135-1].
There is no reason why the case at bar could not have been handled
accordingly. The herein case did not involve any discovery, and was dismissed before
a single defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. The case at bar involved
a shorter Complaint - twenty-six (26) pages (plus the Playboy article) and seven
counts. Plaintiff submits the total attorney fees awarded in the Kardashian case should
applied to the case at bar. Though Defendants claim they expended numerous hours
preparing the anti-SLAPP motion, they also made very similar arguments in their
FRCP 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss while this case was pending in New Jersey. In
those Motions - the fees for which are not recoverable under CCP 425.16(c)(1) -
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 9 of 14 Page ID#:2041
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
10/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES7
Defendants asserted many of the arguments which were later set forth in their anti-
SLAPP Motions.5
Furthermore, a review of Defendants' billings show that a considerable amount
of time involved attorneys performing work and tasks which overlapped and was
redundant of other attorneys' work. Though there were three separate law firms
representing separate group of Defendants (Boal/ Bigelow, Summit, and The Hurt
Locker Defendants), all firms and attorneys were hired by, and reported to, a single
insurance company. Under these circumstances, an award consistent with the
Kardashian case is appropriate.
4. Objections to Defendants' Itemized Billing RecordsDefendants' Itemized Billing Records vary significantly when compared to the
work performed, and therefore lack credibility, warranting dismissal underKetchum
and Christian Research, supra. For example, though Defendant Summit and THL
Defendants collaborated together in the drafting of a single anti-SLAPP motion so as
to allegedly avoid the duplication of efforts and fees, those Defendants are claiming a
total of366.4attorney hours, whereas counsel for Defendants Boal / Bigelow, while
drafting their own, but very similar, motion to strike, are claiming only 96.60 attorneyhours. Boal / Bigelow even involved the drafting of a somewhat length Declaration
form Defendant Boal. There is no reasonable explanation for the huge discrepancy in
the number of hours allegedly incurred in the drafting of similar motions.
The credibility of Defendants' fee requests are further undermined when
considering that at the time of filing Defendants' anti-SLAPP motions, Defendant
summit was only claiming $25,000 plus in fees, plus an estimated $12,400 for the
remainder of the proceedings in their entirety (including review of opposition, drafting
5 Defendants even conceded in their federal motions to dismiss that it appears that New Jersey law applicable to the
claims that Plaintiff has alleged is not materially different from California law. Therefore, much of work product which
went into the later drafting of the anti-SLAPP motions was already done by virtue of Defendants having drafted and filed
the federal motions to Dismiss in New Jersey. See Doc 01, Doc 25, Def Summit Brief In Support, p. 18, fn 4.
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 10 of 14 Page ID#:2042
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
11/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES8
a reply, and attending the hearing; based upon the excess hourly rate of $450/hour for
Halberstadter and $395/hour for 1st year attorney Wu). Doc 82, pp. 19-20. Defendant
Summit is now claiming almost twice this amount.
Similarly, in their anti-SLAPP motion, THL Defendants claimed an
award of attorney fees in the amount of $19,155 (apparently billed at the excess
hourly rate of $450). Doc 78, p 32. Now, THL Defendants are claiming an amount
nearly 5 times greater than initially requested.
Because the credibility of Defendants' documented fee requests are undermined
(as explained above and further explained below), the court should dismiss
Defendants' Motions or significantly reduce Defendants attorney fees award. More
specific objections to Defendants' billings are addressed below.
5. All Hours Billed Regarding Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion forAdditional Time to Respond to Defendants' anti-SLAPPMotion
All Defendants have requested fees incurred for addressing Plaintiff's Ex Parte
Motion for Continuation of this Court's initial Hearing date on Defendant's Motion to
Strike. The court will recall Defendants refused to stipulate to Plaintiff's request to
adjourn the hearing date for 28 days, from March to April 2011 (Plaintiff was stillactively deployed in Afghanistan at the time). The court granted Plaintiff's Motion.
Because Defendants did not prevail, they should not be able to recover their fees
associated with forcing Plaintiff to file the Ex Parte Motion.
6. All Hours Billed Regarding Plaintiff's Supplemental BriefBased Upon Authorities Presented to the Court During OralArgument
Plaintiff objects to Defendants' Billings regarding review of Plaintiff's
Supplemental Motion based upon the new authorities Defendants presented to the
court during oral argument held on August 8, 2011. Because Defendant's newly
raised authorities presented Plaintiff's counsel from adequately responding to same
during oral argument, Plaintiff filed the supplemental brief. Defendants should not be
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 11 of 14 Page ID#:2043
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
12/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES9
permitted to further bill Plaintiff when it was their own dilatory conduct which
necessitated Plaintiff's filings. Same argument applies to billings incurred in
responding to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief, and reviewing Plaintiff's second
supplemental brief.
Defendant Summit's Hourso Summit requests 96.60 attorney hours. Summit admittedly only filed a 2
page Joinder and a 5 page accompanying Memorandum to THLDefendants' anti-SLAPP motion (Doc 82), followed by a 6 page Reply toPlaintiff's Opposition.
o A significant number of Summit's' billing entries are partially redacted,such that it is impossible for Plaintiff's counsel to determine whether thetime entered for said entry was devoted entirely to Anti-SLAPP work orwhether the time was also attributed to the "redacted" event. Plaintiffobjects to these incomplete, block-billed / redacted billings (ie,12-07-10,12-22-10, 12-28-10, 01-05-11, 01-21-11, 01-28-11, 02-10-11, 03-01-11,03-02-11, 03-03-11, 03-15-11, 03-16-11, 03-17-11, 03-28-11, 03-30-11,08-05-11, ). Specific objections in addition to the objection herein are asfollows:
o 12-07-10 2.0 Hrs (DH) for Conf Call & .60 Hrs (Wu) to Attend Mtg reAnti-SLAPP Mtn [(1) Vague, Block Billing; (2) this event is not evenidentified on Def Boal's billings; (3) the conference call / meeting was todiscuss the preparation for the Rule 26(f) Report, which is not anti-SLAPP work; see Def THL Billings, 12-07-10, Doc 133-2, p25; (4)
billings are duplicative in that it is unreasonable for Summit to bill fortwo attorneys attending same meeting / conference]
o 12-22-10 2.80 Hrs for review of Anti-SLAPP matters (the individualdescriptions suggest the total time was only 1.7 hrs)
o 12-27-10 .5 Hrs for emails to & from T Gorry re Anti-SLAPP[Gorry's / THL's Itemizations make no such reference to this event]
Defendant THL's Hourso THL Defendants request 225 attorney hours. THL filed a 25 page anti-
SLAPP motion (half of half of which included substantive argumentssimilar to those made in Defendant Summit's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion toDismiss. THL Defendants also filed a 31 page Reply.
o A significant number of THL's billing entries are partially redacted, suchthat it is impossible for Plaintiff's counsel to determine whether the timeentered for said entry was devoted entirely to Anti-SLAPP work orwhether the time was also attributed to the "redacted" event. Plaintiff
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 12 of 14 Page ID#:2044
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
13/86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28PLAITIFFS OPPOSITIO OT DEFEDATS MOTIOS FOR
ATTOREY FEES10
objects to these incomplete, block-billed / redacted billings (ie, 11-30-10,12-02-10, 12-03-10, 12-06-10, 12-07-10, 12-08-10, 12-10-10, 12-13-10,12-14-10, 12-15-10, 01-03-11, 01-13-11, 01-20-11, 01-24-11, 01-27-11,02-09-11, 02-10-11, 02-11-11, 02-14-11, 03-03-11, 03-11-11, 03-17-11,03-31-11). Specific objections in addition to the objection herein are asfollows:
o 11-29-10 2.80 Hrs (JL) re draft motion to dismiss [event is not anti-SLAPP work(see entry for 12-02-10 & 12-07-10, where "motion todismiss" is distinguished from "anti-SLAPP motion (motion to strike)")
o 11-30-10 2.0 Hrs (JJ) for conference re choice of law issues; tel confwith Summit counsel re strategy for responsive pleading for CD Cal &review prelim orders of dist ct [(1)events are not identified on Summit'sbillings; (2) events do not deal with the Anti-SLAPP Mtn]
o 12-02-10 1.0 Hrs (JL) for draft motion to dismiss and review legalauthorities supporting same and potential anti-SLAPP motion [(1) Vague,
Block Billing; (2) event as it relates to motion to dismiss is not anti-SLAPP work]
o 12-07-10 2.50 Hrs (JJ) for review draft mtn strike, Conf Call w/defense counsel re strategy with prep of 26(f) report, motion to strike,and motion to dismiss [(1) Vague, Block Billing(2) this event is notidentified on Def Boal's billings; (3) the conference call / meeting was todiscuss the preparation for the Rule 26(f) Report and motion to dismiss,which would have been incurred separate and apart from the Anti-SLAPP Motion (motion to strike)].
o 12-15-10 1.80 Hrs (JL) for correspondence re anti-SLAPP motion andrule 26 report (including corr to and from Summit / Halberstadter[(1)Vague, Block Billing; (2) event as it relates to rule 26 report is notanti-SLAPP work; (3) Summit's Itemizations make no such reference tothis event]
o 12-28-10 3.0 Hrs (JL) for correspondence concerning conflict of lawsstatutes and rules [event is not anti-SLAPP work]
o 12-29-10 3.0 Hrs (JJ) for review of authorities concerning conflicts oflaws [event is not anti-SLAPP work]
o 01-03-11 6.30 Hrs (JL) to review Wu correspondence and review andrevise Anti-SLAPP motion; draft motion to dismiss, review legalauthorities supporting same [(1)Vague, Block Billing; (2) event as itrelates to motion to dismiss is not anti-SLAPP work].
o 01-03-11 3.10 Hrs (TG) to review Wu comments and review andcheck anti-SLAPP motion [redundant and duplicative of above entry byatty JL]
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141 Filed 11/21/11 Page 13 of 14 Page ID#:2045
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
14/86
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
15/86
DECLARATION OF TODD J. WEGLARZ IN SUPPORT OFOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ERIK L. JACKSON (State Bar No. 166010)COZEN & OCONNOR601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700Cozen OConnorLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 892-7961Fax: (866) [email protected]
TODD J. WEGLARZ (pro hac vice)Law Offices of Todd J. Weglarz, PLLC30903 Northwestern Highway, Suite 250Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334Telephone: (248) 539-9081
Fax: (248) [email protected] for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SGT. JEFFREY S. SARVER,
Plaintiff,
vTHE HURT LOCKER, LLC, MARKBOAL, KATHRYN BIGELOW, GREGSHAPIRO, NICOLAS CHARTIER,TONY MARK, DONALL McCUSKER,SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC,GROSVENOR PARK MEDIA, LP,FIRST LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.,KINGSGATE FILMS, INC., andPLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., Jointlyand Severally,
Defendants.________________________________________
))))
)))))))))))))
)))))
Case No.: 2:10-cv-09034-JHN(JCx)
DECLARATION OF TODD J.
WEGLARZ IN SUPPORT OFOPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS MOTIONSFOR ATTORNEY FEES
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-1 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#:2047
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
16/86
DECLARATION OF TODD J. WEGLARZ IN SUPPORT OFOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF TODD J. WEGLARZ
I, TODD J. WEGLARZ, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State ofMichigan and have been admittedpro hac vice before this Court. I am owner of the
law firm of Law Offices of Todd J. Weglarz, PLLC, which is the counsel of record
for Plaintiff Sgt. Jeffrey S. Sarver in this action. I have personal knowledge of the
matters stated below and if called on to testify I could and would testify competently
thereto.
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the State Bar ofCalifornias information page for attorney Wu, showing admission to the state bar onDecember 1, 2009.
3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an article regardingthe 2009 attorney billing surveys conducted Incisive Legal, published by
calattorneyfees.com, 02-13-2011.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of theRevenue ResourcGroup v. Dash Dolls Complaint, filed in California Superior Court, County of Fresno
Case No. 11CECG00058.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-1 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#:2048
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
17/86
DECLARATION OF TODD J. WEGLARZ IN SUPPORT OFOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the CaliforniaSuperior Courts May 2011 Tentative Ruling issued by Judge Jeffrey Hamilton in th
matter ofRevenue Resource Group v. Dash Dolls, granting Defendants Anti-SLAPP
Motion and awarding Defendants attorney fees in the total amount of $6,825.00,
based in part upon an hourly rate of $300 for attorney Jeremiah Reynolds (who is
counsel for Defendants Boal/Bigelow herein).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 21, 2011, at Farmington Hills, Michigan.
_-/S/-________________Todd J. Weglarz
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-1 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#:2049
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
18/86
Sunday,November20,2011
HOME
ATTORNEYS
PUBLIC
FUTURELAWYERS
ABOUTUS
ATTORNEYS
PUBLIC
FUTURELAWYERS
ABOUTUS
QUICKLINKS
ConsumerInformation
HowCanIFindandHire
theRightLawyer?
WillForm
FAQs
StateBarOverview
Home>Public>AttorneySe
arch>AttorneyProfile
ATTORNEYSEARCH
SallyWu-#266294
CurrentStatus:A
ctive
ThismemberisactiveandmaypracticelawinCalifornia.
Seebelowformoredetails.
ProfileInformation
Thefollowinginformation
isfromt
heofficialrecordsofTheStateBarofCalifornia.
Bar
Number:
2662
94
Address:
Katte
nMuchinRosenman
2029
CenturyParkESte
2600LosAngeles,CA90067
Map
it
PhoneNumb
er:
(310)788-4559
FaxNumber
:
NotAvailable
e-mail:
County:
LosAngeles
Undergraduate
School:
UnivofCaliforniaIrvine;IrvineCA
District:
District7
Sections:
Litiga
tion
IntellectualPropertyLaw
Law
School:
USCLawSchool;LosAngeles
CA
StatusHistory
EffectiveDate
StatusChange
Present
Active
12/1/2009
AdmittedtoTheStateBarofCalifornia
Explanationofmemberstatus
SearchCalbarSite
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-2 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:2050
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
19/86
DisciplinaryandRela
tedActions
Overviewoftheattorneydisciplinesystem.
Thismemberhasnopublicrecordofdiscipline.
AdministrativeActions
Thismemberhasnopublicrecordofadministrativeactions.
StartNewSearch
2010TheStateBarofC
alifornia
ContactUs|SiteMap|PrivacyPolicy|Notices|Copyright|Acc
essibility|FAQ
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-2 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:2051
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
20/86
FORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES : Reasonableness Of Fees: Two Recent Incisive Legal Intelligence Studies Show Average Billing Rates For Small And Mid-Sized Firms And I
//www.calattorneysfees.com/...leness-of-fees-two-recent-incisive-legal-intelligence-studies-show-average-billing-rates-for-small-and-mid-sized-fir.html[11/20/2011 1:16
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES
ABOUT
Mission Statement
ContributorsDisclaimer
Contact Us
Email Me
SEARCH THIS BLOG
Categories
Cases: Allocation
Cases: Appeal Sanctions
Cases: Appealability
Cases: Arbitration
Cases: Assignment
Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts
Cases: Billing Record
Substantiation.
Cases: Cases Under Review
Cases: Celebrities
Cases: Choice of Law
Cases: Civil Rights
Cases: Class Actions
Cases: Common Fund
Cases: Consumer Statutes
Cases: Costs
Cases: Deadlines
Cases: Deeds of Trust
Cases: Discovery
Cases: Eminent Domain
Cases: Employment
Cases: Equity
Cases: Estoppel
Cases: Ethics
Cases: Experts
Cases: Family Law
Cases: Family Law Awards
Cases: Fee Clause
nterpretation
Cases: Fees as Damages
Cases: Homeowner
Associations
Cases: Indemnity
Cases: Insurance
Cases: Interpleader
Cases: Intervenors
Cases: Judgment Enforcement
Cases: Laffey Matrix
In The News . . . . Different Corporate Clients May Get Different Rates For Same TypeOf Work, Study Suggests, And Canada Supreme Court Chief Justice Worried ThatAttorney Hourly Rates May Shut Out The Middle Class | Main | In The News . . . .
Adventure Writer Clive Cussler Must Be Breathing Easier February 13, 2011
Reasonableness Of Fees: Two Recent
Incisive Legal Intelligence Studies Show
Average Billing Rates For Small And Mid-
Sized Firms And Internal Costs For In-
House Counsel Departments
Incisive Legal Intelligence has two fairly recent surveys
that may be of interest to those of you who follow our blog
with respect to national attorney hourly rates and in-housecounsel costs. Here you go.
2009 Billings Rates and Practice Survey for Small and Mid-Sized
Firms.
In its 2009 study on billing rates and practices in smalland mid-sized firms, Incisive Legal Intelligence has talliedsome interesting findings from a sample size of 255nationwide firms with the largest group having an averageof 21-40 lawyers.
This is what they found:
*The majority of firms bill by the hour, regardless offirm size.
*The average billing rate, nationwide, is $284 perhour.
*Firms with 2-8 lawyers have an average hourlybilling rate of $262, firms with 76-150 lawyers increase to$295 per hour, and firms with over 150 lawyers have anaverage billable rate of $333.
*The average billing rate also increases with alawyers number of years in practice, with lawyers in or
near major metropolitan areas commanding much higherfees than the averages.
*By region, average hourly rates break out this way:Northeast -- $319; West -- $296; South -- $276; andMidwest -- $264.
*The Pacific division (California, Oregon,Washington, Hawaii, and Arizona) has higher billing rateswith an average hourly billing rate of $319.
*The practice areas with the highest hourly billingrates are Plaintiffs Contingency Litigation ($413), followed
RESEARCH
Family Law Awards: Recen
Unpublished Decision Rev
Deadlines For Claiming Se
271 Fee Recovery
Civil Rights/Lodestar/Alloc
Appellate Court Affirms De
To Award $1,000 Winning
Plaintiffs Fees Of $60,400
Of A Requested $566,510
Civil Rights: Student Obtai
Eligibility Category
Determination Under IDEA
Entitled to Attorneys Fees
Recovery
Consumer Statutes: Attorn
Fees Not Authorized To
Prevailing Party Under CC
527.8 For Winning Harass
Injunction
Reasonableness Of Fees:
District Gives Us Some Ins
Into Their Thinking On the
Subject
Leading Cases
Pages
Ethics Opinions
Leading Cases
Rules of Professional Cond
Statutes
Blogroll
Blawg Review
Cal Biz Lit
California Appellate Report
California Punitive Damage
CEB blog
Contract Lawyering Made
Empirical Legal Studies
Gilbert Submits
Legal History Blog
May it Please the Court La
NALFA
The California Blog of App
The California Constitution
The Complex Litigator
The Los Angeles County B
Blog
The Robing Room
The UCL Practitioner
The Volokh Conspiracy - -
California Law Revie
Hastings Law Journal
Loyola of Los Angeles Law
([KLELW%
.
Search thisBlog
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-3 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:2052
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
21/86
FORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES : Reasonableness Of Fees: Two Recent Incisive Legal Intelligence Studies Show Average Billing Rates For Small And Mid-Sized Firms And I
//www.calattorneysfees.com/...leness-of-fees-two-recent-incisive-legal-intelligence-studies-show-average-billing-rates-for-small-and-mid-sized-fir.html[11/20/2011 1:16
Cases: Landlord/Tenant
Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees
Cases: Lis Pendens
Cases: Lodestar
Cases: Mediation
Cases: Minors
Cases: Multipliers
Cases: Paralegal Time
Cases: Pleading
Cases: Poof!
Cases: PreemptionCases: Prevailing Party
Cases: Private Attorney General
CCP 1021.5)
Cases: Probate
Cases: Quantum Meruit
Cases: Quashing/Lack of
urisdiction
Cases: Reasonableness of
Fees
Cases: Receivers
Cases: Referral Agreements
Cases: Requests for Admission
Cases: Retainer Agreements
Cases: Sanctions
Cases: Section 1717
Cases: Section 998
Cases: Settlement
Cases: SLAPP
Cases: Social Security
Cases: Special Fee Shifting
Statutes
Cases: Standard of Review
Cases: Substantiation of
Reasonableness of Fees
Cases: Taxation
Cases: Tort of Another
Cases: Trade SecretsCases: Trespass
Cases: Unconscionability
Cases: Undertaking
Cases: Unlicensed Contractors
Cases: War Stories
Cases: Workers' Compensation
CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION
egislation
News
Off Topics
Rates
Recent Posts
Appeal Sanctions: Ouch!
Appellant Sanctioned $2,000
For Appellate Court Processing
Costs And Will Have To Pay
More To Respondent On
Remand
Probate: Temporary
Conservators Attorney Entitled
To Fees Even If No Permanent
Conservator Ever Appointed
Special Fee Shifting Statute:
CCP 1038 Did Not Allow For
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the
by Labor/Employment ($302), General Law ($296), andReal Estate/Land Use ($294).
*A client can be expect to be charged hourly ratesfor paralegals and other support staff.
2008 Study on In-House.
In a 2008 Law Department Metrics BenchmarkingSurvey of 111 companies, Incisive Legal Intelligence
reports that the median internal cost of operating an in-house law department at a large company grew to $381,618per lawyer, a 10% increase over the previous survey year.Median externalexpenditures for large companies were upsignificantly, from $616,519 to $705,270 per lawyer.Corporate law departments participating in the study spentthe highest percentage of outside counsel fees on litigation(37%), followed by intellectual property (15%) and thenmergers and acquisitions (12%).
What are the primary criteria for selecting outsidecounsel? Answers in order of priority: firm specialization;responsiveness; and cost. For those companies evaluatingoutside counsel, here the the three top evaluation criteria:results; knowledge/experience; cost.
Posted at 04:31 PM in Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Rates | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e552305fbf8834014e860e3f38970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reasonableness Of Fees: Two RecentIncisive Legal Intelligence Studies Show Average Billing Rates For Small And Mid-Sized
Firms And Internal Costs For In-House Counsel Departments:
ConfirmLike
TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment
Review
McGeorge Law Review
Stanford Law Review
UC Davis Law Review
UCLA Law Review
University of San Francisc
Review
California Courthous
Photographs
California
Courthouses
Blog powered by TypeP
Subscribe to this blog's fee
([KLELW%
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-3 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#:2053
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
22/86
A Y A L A . L L P 9 3 7 0 4
C H R I S T O P H E R R U D D . S B N : 1 3 0 7 1 3 N A T H A N M I L L E R . S B N : 2 4 0 2 7 8 M A R Y C A S T R O - A Y A L A . S B N : 2 4 2 2 6 7 M I L L E R & A Y A L A , L L I > 1 9 1 W . S h a w A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 2 F r e s n o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 3 7 0 4 T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 5 9 ) 2 2 2 - 6 6 2 2 F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 5 9 ) 2 2 2 - 6 6 2 6 A t t o r n e y s f o r P l a i n t i f f : T H E R E V E N U E R E S O U R C E G R O U P , L L C
I N C S T A M P O N L Y )
J A N 2 0 1 1 F R E S N O C O U N T Y S U P E R I O R
L E - D E B J i V
S U P E R I O R C O U R T T H E S T A T E C A L I F O R N I A C O U N T Y O F F R E S N O
0 0 0 T H E R E V E N U E R E S O U R C E G R O U P , C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y , d b a M O B I L E R E S O U R C E C A R D ,
P l a i n t i f f .
C a s e N o : V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R :
D A S H D O L L S , C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y . K I M B E R L Y K A R D A S H I A N . i n d i v i d u a l . K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N - O D O M
i n d i v i d u a l . K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N i n d i v i d u a l . K R I S K A R D A S H I A N a k a
K R I S K A R D A S H I A N - J E N N E R a k a K R I S J E N N E R . i n d i v i d u a l , a n d D o e s 1 - 5 0 i n c l u s i v e .
D e f e n d a n t s .
B R E A C H C O N T R A C T ( C e l e b r i t y E n d o r s e m e n t A g r e e m e n t ) ;B R E A C H C O N T R A C T ( L a u n c h A g r e e m e n t ) ; B R E A C H G O O D F A I T H A N D F A I R D E A L I N G ; N E G L I G E N T M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N ( C e l e b r i t y E n d o r s e m e n t A g r e e m e n t ) :N E G L I G E N T M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N ( L a u n c h A g r e e m e n t ) ; N E G L I G E N T I N T E R F E R E N C E W I T H P R O S P E C T I V E E C O N O M I C A D V A N T A G E ; U N J U S T E N R I C H M E N T : C O N S T R U C T I V E T R U S T ; A C C O U N T I N G
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T 1 - O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 62 Page ID#:2054
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
23/86
A Y A L A . I . L P S h a w A v e . , # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4 2 2 - 6 6 2 2
G E N E R A L A L L E G A T I O N S P L A I N T I F F , T H E R E V E N U E R E S O U R C E G R O U P , L L C , d o i n g b u s i n e s s
M O B I L E R E S O U R C E C A R D ( h e r e i n a f t e r " R R G " ) a l l e g e s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t ,D A S H D O L L S , L L C ( h e r e i n a f t e r " D A S H " ) a n d i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s , K I M B E R L YK A R D A S H I A N ( h e r e i n a f t e r " K I M K A R D A S H I A N " ) , K H L O E K A R D A S H I A NK A R D A S H I A N - O D O M ( h e r e i n a f t e r " K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N " ) , K O U R T N E YK A R D A S H I A N ( K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N , a n d K O U R T N E YK A R D A S H I A N c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d h e r e i n a f t e r t h e " K A R D A S H I A N S " ) a n d K R I SK A R D A S H I A N a k a K R I S K A R D A S H I A N - J E N N E R a k a K R I S J E N N E R ( h e r e i n a f t e r " K R I SJ E N N E R " ) ( a l l d e f e n d a n t s c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d h e r e i n a f t e r " D E F E N D A N T S " ) f o l l o w s :
R R G C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n dm e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y g o o d s t a n d i n g w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a lp l a c e b u s i n e s s F r e s n o , C a l i f o r n i a .
R R G e n g a g e d s o l e l y t h e b u s i n e s s m a n u f a c t u r i n g , d i s t r i b u t i n g a n ds e l l i n g c u s t o m i z e d p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d p r o g r a m c o n s u m e r s .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t D A S H i s , a n d a l lt i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a lp l a c e b u s i n e s s L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t K I MK A R D A S H I A N a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y , C a l i f o r n i a .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y , C a l i f o r n i a .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y , C a l i f o r n i a .
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 62 Page ID#:2055
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
24/86
A Y A L A . L L P S h a w A v e . . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t K R I S J E N N E R a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y ,C a l i f o r n i a .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t K R I S J E N N E R a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , w a s t h e m a n a g e r o f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , a n d h a dt h e a u t h o r i t y e n t e r i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r a n d b i n d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a g r e e m e n t s w i t h t h i r d -p a r t i e s s u c h R R G .
R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t t h eK A R D A S H I A N S c r e a t e d D A S H s o l e l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e p r o t e c t i n g t h e m s e l v e s f r o m i n d i v i d u a ll i a b i l i t y .
1 0 . T h e r e e x i s t s , a n d a l l t i m e s m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n e x i s t e d , a u n i t y i n t e r e s t a n do w n e r s h i p b e t w e e n t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d D A S H , s u c h t h a t a n y i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d s e p a r a t e n e s sb e t w e e n t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d D A S H h a v e c e a s e d a n d D A S H t h e a l t e r e g o o f t h eK A R D A S H I A N S t h a t t h e K A R D A S H I A N S c o n t r o l l e d , d o m i n a t e d , m a n a g e d , a n d o p e r a t e d D A S Hs u i t t h e i r o w n c o n v e n i e n c e s .
1 1 . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t a d h e r e n c e t h ef i c t i o n t h e s e p a r a t e e x i s t e n c e D A S H e n t i t y s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e K A R D A S H I A N S w o u l d p e r m i t a b u s e t h e c o r p o r a t e p r i v i l e g e a n d w o u l d p r o m o t e i n j u s t i c e t h a t t h e K A R D A S H I A N S f a c t c o n t r o l l e d , d o m i n a t e d , m a n a g e d , a n d o p e r a t e d D A S H s u i t t h e i r o w n c o n v e n i e n c e s , i g n o r i n g c o r p o r a t e f o r m a l i t i e s , a n d u s i n g t h e c o r p o r a t i o n d e v i c e a t t e m p t a v o i d i n d i v i d u a l l i a b i l i t y , a n d u s i n g t h e a l t e r e g o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n m e a n s m i s t r e a t R R G f o r r e a s o n s a p e r s o n a l a g e n d a , w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r o w n C a l i f o r n i a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o r p o r a t e s t a t u s .
1 2 . J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d V e n u e a r e p r o p e r F r e s n o , C a l i f o r n i a p u r s u a n t P a r a g r a p h t h e C e l e b r i t y E n d o r s e m e n t A g r e e m e n t ( t h e " A G R E E M E N T ' ) e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n R R G a n d
t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d D A S H J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 , t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p y w h i c h h a s b e e n a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d r e f e r e n c e h e r e i n a s E x h i b i t " A . "
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 62 Page ID#:2056
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
25/86
A Y A L A , L L P S h a w A v e . . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
1 3 . R R G u n a w a r e t h e t r u e n a m e s , i d e n t i t i e s a n d c a p a c i t i e s o f D e f e n d a n t ss u e d h e r e i n D O E S t h r o u g h 5 0 , i n c l u s i v e , a n d t h e r e f o r e s u e s s a i d D e f e n d a n t s b y s u c h f i c t i t i o u sn a m e s , p u r s u a n t C a l i f o r n i a C o d e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e S e c t i o n 4 7 4 . R R G w i l l s e e k l e a v e c o u r t
a m e n d t h i s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e t h e t r u e n a m e s a n d c a p a c i t i e s s a i d D O E D e f e n d a n t s w h e na s c e r t a i n e d . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t e a c h t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y n a m e dD e f e n d a n t s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e s a l l e g e d h e r e i n a n d a r e l i a b l e R R G f o r t h e d a m a g e sp r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d t h e r e b y .
1 4 . R R G a l l e g e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d b e l i e f t h a t e a c h t h e D e f e n d a n t s w e r et h e a g e n t s t h e o t h e r a l l t h e a c t i o n s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , t h a t e a c h w a s a c t i n g t h e c o u r s e a n d s c o p e i t s a g e n c y w i t h i t s p r i n c i p l e , a n d t h a t e v e r y a c t o f e a c h D e f e n d a n t w a s r a t i f i e d t h e o t h e r s .
1 5 . F A C T U A L A L L E G A T I O N S
R R G w a s a n d a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t a n d m e n t i o n e d h e r e i n , I n d e p e n d e n t S a l e s O r g a n i z a t i o n " I S O " a u t h o r i z e d m a r k e t t h e p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d s c o n s u m e r s f r o m t h e U n i v e r s i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n e s o t a t h e " i s s u i n g b a n k . "
1 6 . R R G , I S O , e n t e r e d i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t e c h n o l o g y p r o v i d e r , M o b e , I n c . ( " M o b e " ) p r o v i d e t h e c o m p l e x t e c h n o l o g y t h a t a l l o w s t h e c u s t o m i z e d p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d u s e d v a r i o u s w a y s d e s i r e d t h e c o n s u m e r , t h e i s s u i n g b a n k , " n e t w o r k p r o v i d e r " , ( s u c h
V i s a , t h i s c a s e M a s t e r C a r d ) a n d o t h e r e n t i t i e s , s u c h p a y m e n t p r o c e s s o r . 1 7 . P r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d s h a v e b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r w a y f o r c o n s u m e r s
p a y f o r i t e m s r a t h e r t h a n c a r r y i n g c a s h u s i n g t r a d i t i o n a l c r e d i t c a r d s . R R G h a s w o r k e d h a r d a c h i e v e t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d c a r e u t i l i z i n g t h e m o s t a d v a n c e d t e c h n o l o g y a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d s t h a t o f f e r e d c o n s u m e r s . P r e p a i d c o n s u m e r d e b i t c a r d s h a v e v a r i o u s c o n v e n i e n c e a n d s a f e t y f e a t u r e s t h a t m a y m a k e t h e m s u p e r i o r a l t e r n a t i v e u s i n g c a s h t r a d i t i o n a l c r e d i t c a r d s f o r m a n y c o n s u m e r s .
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 62 Page ID#:2057
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
26/86
1 8 . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t c o n s u m e r s u s i n gp r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d s a r e t y p i c a l l y c h a r g e d a s e r i e s d i f f e r e n t t y p e s f e e s f o r u s i n g t h o s e c a r d s . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h o s e f e e s a r e s e t t h e i s s u i n g b a n k , a n d m a y i n c l u d e t r a n s a c t i o n f e e s . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h e f e e s f o r p r e p a i dd e b i t c a r d s a r e d i s c l o s e d t h e c o n s u m e r p r i o r t h e c o n s u m e r ' s p u r c h a s e t h e p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d .
1 9 . b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d D A S H , K R I S J E N N E R e n g a g e d n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h R R G f o r t h e p r o m o t i o n a n d s a l e t h e K A R D A S H I A N M a s t e r C a r d p r e p a i d d e b i tc a r d . K R I S J E N N E R d e m a n d e d t h a t K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N , a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N e a c h r e c e i v e e q u a l c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r R R G ' s r i g h t a n d l i c e n s e u t i l i z e t h e i r n a m e s , n i c k n a m e s , i n i t i a l s , a u t o g r a p h s , f a c s i m i l e s i g n a t u r e s , p h o t o g r a p h s , l i k e n e s s e s ,a n d e n d o r s e m e n t s o f t h e K A R D A S H I A N M a s t e r C a r d p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d .
2 0 . a b o u t J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G a n d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d D A S H e n t e r e d i n t o t h e A G R E E M E N T . S e e E x h i b i t " A . " P u r s u a n t t h e A G R E E M E N T , R R G a c q u i r e d t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t a n d l i c e n s e t o u t i l i z e t h e K A R D A S H I A N S n a m e s , n i c k n a m e s , i n i t i a l s , a u t o g r a p h s , f a c s i m i l e s i g n a t u r e s , p h o t o g r a p h s , l i k e n e s s e s , a n d e n d o r s e m e n t s ( h e r e i n a f t e r t h e " P R O P E R T Y " ) c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m a r k e t i n g a n d s a l e t h e M a s t e r C a r d p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d t h e n a m e t h e K A R D A S H I A N S ( h e r e i n a f t e r t h e " K A R D A S H I A N K A R D " ) .
2 1 . P u r s u a n t P a r a g r a p h a n d t h e A G R E E M E N T , t h e K A R D A S H I A N S g r a n t e d R R G t h e e x c l u s i v e a n d w o r l d w i d e r i g h t a n d l i c e n s e u s e t h e P R O P E R T Y m a r k e t , a d v e r t i s e , p r o m o t e , a n d s e l l t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D , a n y m a n n e r d e t e r m i n e d R R G , t h e d i s c r e t i o n R R G , f o r t e r m o f t w o ( 2 ) y e a r s ( h e r e i n a f t e r " R O Y A L T Y T E R M . " ) U p o n m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t t h e p a r t i e s , t h e A G R E E M E N T c o u l d r e n e w e d u n l i m i t e d n u m b e r a d d i t i o n a l o n e
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 62 Page ID#:2058
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
27/86
2 2 . c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e A G R E E M E N T , R R G a g r e e d p a yD A S H b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , t h e s u m o f T h r e e D o l l a r s ( $ 3 . 0 0 ) f o r e a c hK A R D A S H I A N K A R D a c t i v a t e d o r s o l d e a c h m o n t h t h e c a r d r e m a i n e d a c t i v e d u r i n g t h eR O Y A L T Y T E R M . R R G f u r t h e r a g r e e d p a y D A S H b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , t w e n t y -f i v e p e r c e n t ( 2 5 % ) o f t h e u s a g e t r a n s a c t i o n f e e s R R G r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o nd u r i n g t h e R O Y A L T Y T E R M ( h e r e i n a f t e r " R O Y A L T Y " " R O Y A L T I E S " ) . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( A ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t " A . "
2 3 . I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e A G R E E M E N T , R R G a g r e e d p a yD A S H t h e t o t a l s u m S e v e n t y - F i v e T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) a d v a n c e t h eR O Y A L T I E S . R R G a g r e e d p a y T h i r t y - S e v e n T h o u s a n d F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) u p o nt h e s i g n i n g t h e A G R E E M E N T ( " I n i t i a l D e p o s i t " ) a n d p a y a d d i t i o n a l T h i r t y - S e v e n T h o u s a n dF i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) s i x ( 6 ) m o n t h s a f t e r t h e s i g n i n g t h e A G R E E M E N T( " A d d i t i o n a l D e p o s i t " ) . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( A ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
2 4 . J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G p a i d D A S H b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S ,t h e I n i t i a l D e p o s i t T h i r t y - S e v e n T h o u s a n d F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) . S e e c o p y R R G ' s c a s h i e r ' s c h e c k p a i d D A S H b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n di n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t " B . "
2 5 . a b o u t J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 , D A S H b e h a l f t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , a c c e p t e d t h e I n i t i a l D e p o s i t T h i r t y - S e v e n T h o u s a n d F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) p a i d b y R R G . t h e p r e s e n t d a t e , n e i t h e r D A S H n o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N S h a v e r e t u r n e d R R G ' s I n i t i a l D e p o s i t T h i r t y - S e v e n T h o u s a n d F i v e H u n d r e d D o l l a r s ( $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) .
2 6 . t h e A G R E E M E N T , t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d a g r e e d t h a t e a c h c u s t o m e r w o u l d r e q u i r e d p a y i n i t i a l f e e N i n e D o l l a r s a n d N i n e t y - F i v e C e n t s ( $ 9 . 9 5 ) ( " S e t F e e " ) a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t r e c e i v e a R O Y A L T Y o n a n y S e t F e e s p a i d . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( E ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
A Y A L A . L L P S h a w A v e . , 8 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4 2 2 2 - 6 6 2 2
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 6 of 62 Page ID#:2059
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
28/86
A Y A L A . L L P A v e . . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
2 7 . t h e A G R E E M E N T , t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a g r e e d a v a i l a b l e f o r , c o o p e r a t e a n d p a r t i c i p a t e p h o t o s e s s i o n s , m a r k e t i n g , a d v e r t i s i n g , p u b l i c i t y , i n t e r v i e w s , a n ds i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D , r e a s o n a b l y r e q u e s t e d R R G . S e eP a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( A ) o f t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t " A . "
2 8 . P u r s u a n t t h e A G R E E M E N T , K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O EK A R D A S H I A N , a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N e a c h i n d i v i d u a l l y a g r e e d a p p e a r a t l e a s t t h r e e( 3 ) t i m e s p e r c a l e n d a r y e a r , f o r t o t a l n i n e ( 9 ) a p p e a r a n c e s , s t u d i o l o c a t e d L o s A n g e l e s ,C a l i f o r n i a a r e a t o p a r t i c i p a t e t h e p r o d u c t i o n v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s , p h o t o g r a p h s a n d o t h e rp r o m o t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s r e a s o n a b l y r e q u e s t e d R R G p r o m o t e t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N a g r e e d p a r t i c i p a t e l e a s t t w o ( 2 ) t h e n i n e ( 9 ) s e s s i o n s t o g e t h e r . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( B ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
2 9 . P u r s u a n t t h e A G R E E M E N T , K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O EK A R D A S H I A N , a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N e a c h i n d i v i d u a l l y a g r e e d m a k e a t l e a s t t h r e e( 3 ) p u b l i c a p p e a r a n c e s e a c h c a l e n d a r y e a r , f o r t o t a l n i n e ( 9 ) a p p e a r a n c e s , p r o m o t e t h eK A R D A S H I A N K A R D , r e a s o n a b l y r e q u e s t e d R R G . K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O EK A R D A S H I A N , a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N a g r e e d a p p e a r t o g e t h e r f o r a t l e a s t t w o ( 2 )t h e n i n e ( 9 ) a p p e a r a n c e s . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( C ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t oE x h i b i t " A . "
3 0 . t h e A G R E E M E N T , t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e s e s s i o n sa n d a p p e a r a n c e o n l y a f t e r t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y n o t i c e a n d a c c e p t a n c e t h e s e s s i o n a p p e a r a n c e . A l lK A R D A S H I A N S e x p e n s e s w e r e b e s u b m i t t e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y R R G w r i t i n g p r i o r a n y
s e s s i o n o r a p p e a r a n c e . S e e P a r a g r a p h S u b d i v i s i o n ( D ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 7 of 62 Page ID#:2060
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
29/86
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
30/86
A Y A L A , L L P S h a w A v e . . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
3 5 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d / o r D A S H a g r e e d i n d e m n i f y , d e f e n d a n d h o l dh a r m l e s s R R G f r o m a n y d a m a g e s f o r c o s t s , e x p e n s e s , a n d l o s s e s ( i n c l u d i n g r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e sa n d c o s t s ) a r i s i n g f r o m t h e a c t s o m i s s i o n s t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d / o r D A S H t h eK A R D A S H I A N S a n d / o r D A S H f a i l e d p e r f o r m t h e t e r m s t h e A G R E E M E N T . S e e P a r a g r a p h
t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t " A . " 3 6 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S a g r e e d c o m p l y w i t h a l l t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s
i m p o s e d M a s t e r C a r d t h e u s e a n d p r o m o t i o n o f t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . S e e P a r a g r a p h t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
3 7 . a b o u t S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 0 , R R G p r o v i d e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R I S J E K N E R a n d / o r D A S H w i t h t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s i m p o s e d M a s t e r C a r d f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D .
3 8 . O c t o b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G c o n t a c t e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R I S J E N N E R a n d / o r D A S H s c h e d u l e t i m e w i t h K I M K A R D A S H I A N , K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N a n d K O U R T N E Y K A R D A S H I A N b e f o r e t h e l a u n c h e v e n t f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 1 0 , r e v i e w t h e f e e s c h e d u l e s a n d t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D o n c e a g a i n b e f o r e t h e o f f i c i a l l a u n c h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . S e e e m a i l f r o m N a n c y T o r o s i a n R R G K R I S J E N N E R d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h
E x h i b i t " C . "
3 9 . O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G p r o v i d e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R I S J E N N E R a n d / o r D A S H w i t h t h e f e e s c h e d u l e i m p o s e d b y U n i v e r s i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D a n d b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n h o w t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D c o m p a r e d o t h e r c o m p a r a b l e p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d s l i k e t h e R u s h C a r d ( R u s s e l l S i m m o n s ) p r e p a i d d e b i t c a r d . S e e e m a i l f r o m N a n c y T o r o s i a n R R G K R I S J E N N E R d a t e d O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 . a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t " D . "
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 9 of 62 Page ID#:2062
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
31/86
A Y A L A . L L P S h a w A > e . . f U 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
4 0 . N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G p r o v i d e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R J S J E N N E Ra n d / o r D A S H w i t h a n o t h e r s u m m a r y t h e f e e s c h e d u l e i m p o s e d b y U n i v e r s i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k f o rt h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . S e e e m a i l f r o m N a n c y T o r o s i a n o f R R G t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d / o rD A S H d a t e d N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t * * E . " a b o u t N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 0 , R R G p r o v i d e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R I S J E N N E R a n d / o r D A S H w i t h s u m m a r y t h e f e e s c h e d u l e i m p o s e d b y U n i v e r s i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . A t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t " F " t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p y t h e f e e s c h e d u l e i m p o s e d b y U n i v e r s i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k t h a t w a s p r o v i d e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , K R I S J E N N E R a n d / o r D A S H .
4 1 . P u r s u a n t P a r a g r a p h t h e A G R E E M E N T , R R G w a s r e q u i r e d o b t a i n a n d m a i n t a i n , i t s o w n e x p e n s e , p r o d u c t l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y l i c e n s e d b u s i n e s s C a l i f o r n i a a n d h a v i n g B e s t r a t i n g b e t t e r , n a m i n g t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r e d s . R R G o b t a i n e d t h e p r o d u c t l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y r e q u i r e d
S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 .
4 2 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S c o u l d o n l y t e r m i n a t e t h e A G R E E M E N T u p o n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s w r i t t e n n o t i c e R R G R R G w a s a d j u d i c a t e d i n s o l v e n t o r d e c l a r e d b a n k r u p t c y , f a i l e d p a y t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n y a m o u n t d u e p u r s u a n t t h e A G R E E M E N T w i t h i n s i x t y ( 6 0 ) d a y s o f t h e d u e d a t e t h e p a y m e n t f a i l e d m a i n t a i n p r o d u c t l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e h e r e i n p r o v i d e d . S e e P a r a g r a p h t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t " A . "
4 3 . R R G h a s n o t b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d i n s o l v e n t , d e c l a r e d b a n k r u p t c y f a i l e d p a y t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n y a m o u n t d u e p u r s u a n t t o t h e A G R E E M E N T .
4 4 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S a g r e e d t h a t R R G c o u l d c o n t i n u e m a r k e t a n d s e l l t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A G R E E M E N T f o r p e r i o d t h r e e ( 3 ) m o n t h s f o l l o w i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e A G R E E M E N T . S e e P a r a g r a p h 1 8 , S u b d i v i s i o n ( B ) t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o E x h i b i t " A . "
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 10 of 62 Page ID#:2063
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
32/86
A Y A L A . L L P A v c . f l 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4
4 5 . T h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y a n y a c t i o n t a k e n t o i n t e r p r e t e n f o r c e t h e A G R E E M E N T , i n c l u d i n g l i t i g a t i o n a r b i t r a t i o n , s h a l l e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r f r o m t h e n o n -p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i t s r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s a n d c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s a n d p o s t -j u d g m e n t p o s t - d e c i s i o n e n f o r c e m e n t , c o l l e c t i o n a n d a p p e a l e x p e n s e s . S e e P a r a g r a p h t h e A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t " A . "
4 6 . R R G p r e p a r e d f o r t h e l a u n c h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D p r o m o t i n g a n d f u n d i n g l a u n c h e v e n t h e l d P A C H A , N e w Y o r k , N e w Y o r k , N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 0 . S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , K R I S J E N N E R c o n t r a c t u a l l y o b l i g a t e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a p p e a r t o g e t h e r P A C H A a n d r e m a i n t h e c l u b f o r t h e l a u n c h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D f o r p e r i o d t i m e l e s s t h a n t h r e e ( 3 ) h o u r s ( h e r e i n a f t e r " L A U N C H A G R E E M E N T " ) . S e e L A U N C H
A G R E E M E N T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t " G . M 4 7 . c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e L A U N C H A G R E E M E N T , R R G p a i d t o t a l s u m
n o t l e s s t h a n S i x t y - F i v e T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) f o r t h e p r o m o t i o n a n d l a u n c h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D P A C H A . T h i s s u m i n c l u d e s , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e v e n u e , t r a v e l c o s t s f o r R R G , t r a v e l c o s t s f o r K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N , h o t e l e x p e n s e s f o r K H L O E K A R D A S H I A N , m e a l s , c a r s e r v i c e f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , h a i r a n d m a k e u p f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , e m p l o y m e n t t h r e e ( 3 ) p u b l i c r e l a t i o n f i r m s p r o m o t e t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D , p h o t o g r a p h e r s , v a r i o u s m a r k e t i n g m a t e r i a l s , p r i n t e d i n v i t a t i o n s , a n d f l o r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N S .
4 8 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S a p p e a r e d t h e l a u n c h e v e n t f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 1 0 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S l e f t P A C H A a f t e r o n l y f i f t y - f i v e ( 5 5 ) m i n u t e s . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S r e t u r n e d P A C H A u p o n t h e d e m a n d R R G a f t e r t w e n t y ( 2 0 ) m i n u t e s , a n d s t a y e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l f o r t y ( 4 0 ) m i n u t e s , f o r t o t a l o n e ( 1 ) h o u r a n d t h i r t y - f i v e ( 3 5 ) m i n u t e s .
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 11 of 62 Page ID#:2064
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
33/86
A Y A L A . L L P S h a w A v e . . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4 2 2 - 6 6 2 2
4 9 . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t t h e K A R D A S H I A N S b e h a v i o r t h e l a u n c h e v e n t f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D N e w Y o r k w a s w i d e l y a n d n e g a t i v e l y r e p o r t e d u p o n . M o r e o v e r , R R G f u r t h e r i n f o r m e d t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e i n i t i a l n e g a t i v e p u b l i c i t y t h e p r e s s a n d o t h e r p u b l i c f i g u r e s t h e r e a f t e r b e g a n d r u m b e a tn e g a t i v e r e p o r t i n g a n d c o m m e n t , d i r e c t e d c e r t a i n f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s t h e K A R D A S H I A N
K A R D . R R G h a d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e " u p f r o n t " a n n u a l f e e s b e i n g d e m a n d e d f o r t h eK A R D A S H I A N K A R D .
5 0 . N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , c o u n s e l f o r D A S H a n d / o r t h e K A R D A S H I A N S c a u s e d a n e m a i l s e n t R R G w i t h a n a t t a c h e d t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r t h a t t e r m i n a t e d t h eA G R E E M E N T b e t w e e n t h e K A R D A S H I A N S a n d R R G e f f e c t i v e i m m e d i a t e l y . R R G i n f o r m e da n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t c o u n s e l f o r D A S H s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e n t c o p y o f t h et e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r m e d i a o u t l e t s . R R G w a s n o t i f i e d t h e m e d i a c o v e r a g e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e rs e n t c o u n s e l f o r D A S H . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t D A S H n o t i f i e dt h e p u b l i c t h a t w a s t e r m i n a t i n g t h e A G R E E M E N T b e f o r e p r o p e r l y n o t i f i e d R R G . A t t a c h e dh e r e t o a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e w i t h E x h i b i t " H " t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p y o f t h eK A R D A S H I A N / D A S H N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r .
5 1 . N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , R R G r e c e i v e d e m a i l f r o m c o u n s e l f o r U n i v e r s i t yN a t i o n a l B a n k t e r m i n a t i n g i t s I S O . I m m e d i a t e l y u p o n h a v i n g i t s I S O r e v o k e d , R R G w a s p r e v e n t e df r o m o p e r a t i n g a n d d o i n g b u s i n e s s .
5 2 . F o l l o w i n g t h e f i a s c o c a u s e d t h e K A R D A S H I A N S b e h a v i o r t h e l a u n c he v e n t N e w Y o r k a n d g a i n i n g i n t e n s i t y t h r o u g h t h e p u b l i c t e r m i n a t i o n t h e A G R E E M E N T t h e K A R D A S H I A N S , R R G w a s w r o n g f u l l y s u b j e c t e d p u b l i c r i d i c u l e a n d n e g a t i v e p u b l i c i t yr e g a r d i n g i t s c o m p a n y a n d i t s p r o d u c t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . R R G w a s w r o n g f u l l ya n d n e g a t i v e l y t a r g e t e d f o r s e t t i n g t h e p r i c i n g s t r u c t u r e a n d f e e s c h e d u l e f o r t h e K A R D A S H I A NK A R D .
V E R I F I E D C O M P L A I N T F O R D A M A G E S
Exhibit C
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 141-4 Filed 11/21/11 Page 12 of 62 Page ID#:2065
8/3/2019 Opposition Attys Fees Sgt Sarver v Nicolas Chartier
34/86
A Y A L A . L l . P S h a w A v e . # 1 0 2
9 3 7 0 4 2 2 2 - 6 6 2 2
5 3 . T h e K A R D A S H I A N S n e g o t i a t e d w i t h R R G f o r t h e c r e a t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o nt h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . R R G d i s c l o s e d a l l p r i c i n g a n d f e e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e
K A R D A S H I A N K A R D . R R G i n f o r m e d a n d b e l i e v e s a n d t h e r e u p o n a l l e g e s t h a t t h eK A R D A S H I A N S d e n i e d k n o w i n g a b o u t t h e c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e K A R D A S H I A N K A R D a n dp u b l i c a l l y t e r m i n a t e d i t s A G R E E M E N T w i t h R R G .
5 4 . R R G h a s w r o n g f u l l y b e e n t h e s u b j e c t n u m e r o u s n e g a t i v e a r t i c l e s , n e g a t i v er e p o r t s b u s i n e s s a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t n e w s , a n d S a t u r d a y N i g h t L i v e p a r o d y . T h e m i s p l a c e dn e g a t i v e p u b l i c i t y f o c u s e d R R G f o l l o w i n g t h e p u b l i c t e r m i n a t i o n t h e A G R E E M E N T t h eK A R D A S H I A N S h a s f o r c e d R R G c e a s e o p e r a t i n g a n d c o n d u c t i n g b u s i