You are on page 1of 17
Mark Goldowitz, # 96418 CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP PROJECT 2903 Sacramento Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Phone: (510) 486-9123 x 301 Fax: (510) 486-9708 | Counsel for Defendant a/k/a benderanddundat ye D. Kontorovsky IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR TH EAGLE BROADBAND, INC., Plaintiff, a DOES | through 25, inclusive, Defendants. UNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No. 1-05-CV050179 DEFENDANT DOE 5°S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS* FEBS (C.C.P. § 425,16(¢)) Date: August 8, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 2 Judge: Hon, William J. Eltving Complaint Filed: — October 5, 2005 Trial Date: None Set Special Motion to Strike Complaint Granted: March 7, 2006 [Filed in conjunction with defendant's notice of motion, declarations, compendium of federal authorities, and proof of service] MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES (CCP. § 231610) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... INTRODUCTION. I FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. Bagle Broadband, Inc. B. The Eagle Yahoo! Finance Message Board. C. Thomas Mould D. Proc NDANT MOULD IS lural History ENTITLED TO RECO’ He HIS REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES, AS THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE ANTI-SLAPP. LAW, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16(c). I. DEFENDANT MOULD’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES ARE REASONABLE. A. The Purposes of the Fee- Fully Compensatory Fee B, _Defendant’s Claim Follows the Required Lodestar-Adjustment Method C. A Summary of Defendant’s Claim. D. Defendant's Lodestar Is Reasonable. 1, Defendant's Counsel’s Hourly Rates Are Reasonable. a. Mark Goldowitz b. Paul Clifford .. 2, The Number of Hours Claimed by Defendant’s Counsel Is Reasonable. a, Defendant’s Claim Is Fully Documented. . . b. _Defendant’s Hours Are Reasonable. 3. Defendant's Out-of-Pocket Expenses Are Reasonable. Defendant Requests Lodestar CONCLUSION, “omponent Findings i MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS ES (GCP. § MEI) hifting Provision of the Anti-SLAPP Law Requires a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Gates v. Gomez (9 Cir. 1995) 60 F.3d 525 ........ pends 10 Metabolife International v. Wornick (8.D.Cal, 2002) 213 F.Supp.2d 1220 5 Perkins v. Mobile Housing Bd. (11 Cir. 1988) 847 F.2d 735... : see 10 Wooldridge v. Marlene Industries Corp. (6th Cit.1990) 898 F.2d 1169 9 STATE CASES Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1407 eoacco0 5,12 Bihun v. AT&T (1993) 13 Cal.App.Ath 976 : vee 6 Children's Hospital and Medical Center v. Belshe (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740 6 Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628 6 Dove Audio, Inc., v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1996) 47 Cal.App.dth 777 4 Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.Apptth 1400.0... 0.00... : 4 Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Commission (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 983. Beeeopnece sone A 12 Hadley v, Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677 .. . lo Jarrow Formulas v, LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728 : 7 (Ketchiumiys Moses (2001) 24(Call ain lo. ect ee ere tg eee 4,5,6,.9 Liu v, Moore (1999) 69 Cal. App.Ath 745 : fs wed Margolin v. Regional Planning Commission (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999 re Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553 9bd¢oacesqonqd 2 ii MEMORANDUM ISO MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES (CCP, § 478160)