Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (11483)	9/1/2011 6:54:08 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 12465

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff does not contest the fact that the Defendant is the prevailing party, the skill and expertise of defense counsel or the fact that Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(c) (“CCP §425.16(c)”)provides for mandatory attorney's fees. Plaintiff does not contest the defense counsel's hourly rate. However, the Code and the cases construing it all mandate the award of a reasonable fee. In this case, in which the matter was disposed of by motion in the early stages of the litigation, before even the Court's setting conference, a $72,000 fee is not reasonable. Several things mandate the discounting of the fees requested by 50%. They are: 1. Overstaffing and the unnecessary use of multiple attorneys and law firms, where most of the work was admittedly done by one attorney in one firm. 2. Bill padding, as revealed by such timekeeping terms as “reviewing, evaluating, revising, finalizing and analyzing” which, in this case, is disproportionate to the actual amount of work produced. 3. The fee should be limited to the anti-SLAPP motion only. Extract- Doc 56 PDF file viewer.zoho.com