/

1 MARKM.HATHAWAY,ESQ.
(CA 151332; DC 437335; IL 6327924; NY 2431682)
2 JENNA E. EYRICH, ESQ. (CA 303560)
WERKSMAN JACKSON
3
HATHAWAY & QUINN LLP
888 West Sixth Street, Fourth Floor JUN 2 § 2018
4
Los Angeles, California 90017 '.'iMlil f;1ili\/,."1 ,:.}l~fk
5 Te\ephone: (213) 688-0460 ,r,,,:, i;v.y .~.;,1u, oanch~z, Deputy -
6 Facsimile: (213) 624-1942
E-Mail: mhathaway@werksmanjackson.com
7 E-Mail: jenna@werksmanjackson.com

8 Attorneys for Petitioner John Doe

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12 JOHN DOE, an individual, Case No.: BS163736

13 Petitioner, [Hon. Elizabeth Allen White, Dept. 48]

v.
NOTICE OF ORDER FOR UNIVERSITY OF
14
AINSLEY CARRY, Ed.D, et al., , SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO PAY
PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE
15
Respondents. AMOUNT OF $111,965.00
16

17 TO RESPONDENT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

18 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Honorable Elizabeth Allen White, Judge of the Superior Court,
19 awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $111,965.00 to be paid by Respondent University of Southern
20 California, pursuant to the Judgment entered herein against University of Southern California on March
21 19, 2018. A true and correct copy of the court's tentative decision, now final, is att.~ghed hereto .
.,

22

23

24
25
DATED: June 28, 2018 By:
~ '

26 · rk M. Hathaway, Esq.
Jenna E. Eyrich, Esq.
27 Attorneys for Petitioner JOHN DOE
28

NOTICE OF ORDER TO PAY ATTONREYS FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $111,965.00

1
HEARING DATE: June 28, 2018 JUDGMENT: March 19, 2018

CASE: John Doe v. Ainsley Carry, et al.

CASE NO.: BS163736

Opposed: Yes.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner John Doe

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Respondent University of Southern California

PROOF OF SERVICE:
• Correct Address: Yes.
• 16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by personal service on June 6, 2018.

• GRANT motion for attorney's fees in the total amount of 111,965.00.

ANALYSIS

Motion for Attorney's Fees

Respondents' evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Mark Hathaway are

SUSTAINED, as the evidence is irrelevant.

Respondents' evidentiary objections to the Declarations of Mark W. Allen and

Jenna E. Eyrich are OVERRULED.

Petitioner John Doe moves for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to CCP §
1021.5.

The Court agrees with Respondent that this motion for attorney's fees is untimely
under CRC Rule 3.l 702(b)(l), 8.104. However, the Court has discretion to extend the
deadline to fiie a motion for attorney's fees for good cause, even if such request for
extension is not filed until after the deadline for filing an attorney's fees motion has
passed. Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 304,326. An
honest, but reasonable mistake of law may constitute good cause for such extension. Id.
at 327. The Court exercises its discretion to hear the attorney's fees motion on the merits.
Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish & Game Com. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th
128, 135-36.

Here, Petitioner is the successful party in that he obtained a judgment vacating

USC's investigative findings to justify Petitioner's expulsion from USC. The Court
ordered USC to conduct a new fair and impartial investigation. See Statement of
Decision ("SOD"), Page 14.

The Court also finds that a significant non-pecuniary benefit has been conferred
upon a large class of persons-namely, individuals at USC who are accused of violating
USC's sexual misconduct policy where a Title IX investigation is conducted. In granting
the petition, this Court found, among other things, that, not only was USC's Title IX
Office improper biased against Petitioner and in favor of Roe in rendering the
detennination against Petitioner (SOD, Pages 11), but also that USC's Title IX
Coordinator held an adversarial position in relation to Petitioner, rendering her advisory
role with the purportedly neutral Student Equity Review Panel improper. SOD, Page 11.
The Court found that the student equity review panel "is merely a proxy for the Title IX
Office, which actually rendered the underlying decision" (SOD, Page 12), and that "the
Title IX Office is involved in each stage of the decision-making process." SOD, Page 12,
italics in original. Institutional bias is summed up in the Court's finding that
"Coordinator Means-a person who has expressed vitriol against Petitioner and
favoritism towards Roe-is pennitted to advise each purported decision maker in
Petitioner's disciplinary proceeding"--especially when Coordinator Means served as an
advisor to the appeal panel as well (SOD, Page 12). Petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining a judicial finding that such institutional bias exists, which willconfer a benefit
upon the class of persons at USC accused of violating USC's sexual misconduct policy
where a Title IX investigation is conducted.

The Court also finds that Petitioner had no individual financial interest in this
litigation. The goal of this petition was to reverse the expulsion and obtain a fair hearing.
It is speculative and attenuated to link Petitioner's future financial prospects as a result of
vacating his expulsion:

Thus, the amount or value of any personal benefit to respondents is

speculative. Respondents are not "cut off from the benefits of section
1021.5 because they pursued litigation that "'might someday help them ...
secure their [financial] interests.'" [Citation.]" (Heron Bay, supra, 19
Cal.App.5th at p. 395.)

People v. Investco Management & Development LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 443,

471.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees
pursuant to CCP § 1021.5.

2
 The Court finds that the hourly rates and time spent on this matter, as set forth at
Page 19: 11-27 of the points and authorities and~~ 9-10 of the Declaration of Mark M.
Hathaway are reasonable. The Court approves the amount of $106,831.00 for legal fees,
$1,634.00 in paralegal fees and $3,500 for fees incurred in bringing this motion. The
total amount of attorney's fees to be awarded is $111,965.00. The Court declines to
apply any multiplier.

3
 PROOF OF SERVICE
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 ) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
3
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within
4 action; my business address is 888 West Sixth Street, Suite 400, Los Angeles, California 90017.
5
On June 28, 2018, I served the foregoing document described NOTICE OF ORDER FOR UNIVERSITY OF
6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO PAY PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $111,965.00 all interested
parties listed below by transmitting to all interested parties a true copy thereof as follows :
7
Apalla U. Chopra
8 O'Melveny & Myers LLP
400 South Hope Street
9 Los Angeles, CA 90071 -2899
Telephone: (213) 430-6352
10 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
E-mail: achopra@omm.com
11 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
12 D BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION from FAX number (213) 624-1942 to the fax number set forth above. The facsimile
machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2005(i), I caused the
13
machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.
14 D BY MAIL by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth above. I am readily
familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing . Under that practice it would be
15 deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
16
or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 ~ BY PERSONAL SERVICE by delivering a copy of the document(s) by hand to the addressee or I cause such envelope
to be delivered by process server.
18
D BY EXPRESS SERVICE by depositing in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier or
19 delivering to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or
package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it
20 is to be served.
21 D BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION by transmitting a PDF version of the document(s) by electronic mail to the party(s)
identified on the service list using the e-mail address(es) indicated.
22
~ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
23

24 D I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Am rica true and correct.
25
Executed on June 28, 2018 in Los Angeles, California
26
27
28

NOTICE OF ORDER TO PAY ATTONREYS FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $111 ,965.00

2