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 aTABLE 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)