You are on page 1of 14
Mark Goldowitz, #96418 || CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP PROJECT 903 Sacramento Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: (510) 486-9123 x 301 Fax: (510) 486-9708 Counsel for Defendant Thomas Mould, sued herein as DOE 5 a/k/a benderanddundat IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EAGLE BROADBAND, INC., Case No. 1-05-CV050179 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DOE 5’S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT vw OF HIS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES (C.CP. § 425.16() DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, August 8, 2006 Defendants. 00 am. 2 Hon. William J. Elfving Complaint Filed: — October 5, 2005 Trial Date: None Set” Special Motion to Strike Complaint Granted: March 7, 2006 [filed in conjunction with defendant's supplemental jeclarations, supplemental compendium of federal authorities, and proof of sesvice) REPLY MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES (C.CP. § 425.16) 647 ~ rc ‘ABLE OF CONTENTS TRODUCTION « DEFENDANT MOULD’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS IS REASONABLE. ‘A. The Hourly Rates for Defendant’s Counsel Are Reasonable. .. . B. _ The Time Spent by Defendant’s Counsel Is Reasonable and Should Be Fully Compensated 1. _ Defendant Is Entitled to Recover Fees for All Work Which Is Reasonably Related to His Special Motion to Strike..... 06.00... 000 3 2. Defendant Mould Seeks Fees Only for Work Which Is Reasonably Related to His Special Motion to Strike or this Fee Motion. . . . 3. Defendant Is Entitled to Recover Fees for Work on this Fee Motion. ... . sj 4. ‘The Time Spent Obtaining Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims Against Mould is ‘Reasonable, Compared to the Time Spent by Plaintiff's ‘ounsel. 5, The Time Spent and Tasks Performed Were Not Unnecess Redundant, or Excessive. 7 C.. Defendant’s Out-of-Pocket Expenses Are Reasonable. 29 IL ASUMMARY OF DEFENDANT MOULD’S UPDATED FEE CLAIM. 10 CONCLUSION. 10 648 i REPLY MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES (C.CP. § 425.16(0)) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES US. v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 1990) 748 F.Supp. 1416, 1422, urd in relevant part sub nom, Davis v. City and County of San Francisco (9* Cir, 1992) 976 F.2d 1536, 1543, modified on other grounds (9* Cir. 1993) 984 F.2d 345. STATE CASES Chambers v, Miller (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 821. Children's Hospital and Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 917 Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628. Dove Audio v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal-AppAth 777... ..seeeseeee eee eees sees 4 Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1400. Ketchum v, Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122. Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1996) 39 Cal-App.4th 1379... ..2..00t040+ 3 Macias v. Hartwell (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 669. Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal. App.Ath 763. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1085. Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.th 15, 45 Cal. Rptr.3d 633. Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578, 649 ii REPLY MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES (CGP, § @5.16(0)