Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 63.7 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 11, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 387 Words, 2,392 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43520/142-5.pdf

Download Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 63.7 kB)


Preview Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona
EXHIBIT "C"
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES D. ONOFRY
STATE OF ARIZONA )
County of Maricopa g SS-
I, CHARLES D. ONOFRY, being duly sworn according to law, depose and
state as follows:
1. I am a partner with the law firm of Schneider & Onofry which
represents Chemical Lime in the above referenced matter. I make this affidavit based
on my personal knowledge.
2. I am the attorney primarily responsible for handling this matter. I
have reviewed our billing records. They reflect that our office first began defending this
matter and billing on February 11, 2005.
3. As of the date the judgment was entered, May 24, 2007, this firm
had incurred and billed to its client attorneys’ fees in the amount of $36,938.50 L
(including time spent on appellant issues). It had incurred costs (again through May 24,
2007) of $2,955.32.
4. Although Defendant BNSF took the primary lead in defending
Plaintiffs claims, this office was intimately involved in that process and received and
reviewed the same discovery, the same disclosures, and attended the same depositions
which included the deposition of Plaintiff, P|aintiff’s liability expert Frank Berg, PIaintiff’s
medical expert, Dr. Charles Lindsay, and attended the defense of BNSF’s chief medical
director, Dr. Khuri. This office also filed its own summary judgment motion on PIaintiff’s
claims (see Doc. 68) in addition to joining BNSF’s motion (see Doc. 72).
5. A considerable part of the overall fees incurred, did involve the
defense of the indemnity claim asserted by BNSF. Approximately $3,362.50 was
expended in defending the indemnity claim, $5,441.00 on appellate issues, and leaving
the remainder (approximately $28,135.00) as representing defense costs pertaining to
P|3iCtafs,8 2L0E.Ucv-00619-RCB Document 142-5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page1 of2

The foregoing facts are true and correc on my personal knowledge.
Charles D. Onofry 2
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this u___ day of July, 2007, by
CHARLES D. ONOFRY.
No {gw Piublic
l\/ly cfmmission expires:
g [ QQLO § N0§1§:gubi§igzo$a g
l a 0un
2 ,wv ;. . i /./., [ g
Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB Document 142-5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT "C"

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 142-5

Filed 07/11/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 142-5

Filed 07/11/2007

Page 2 of 2