Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 James M. McGee, Esq. 2 Attorney at Law State Bar No. 011931 3 P.O. Box 460 Cottonwood, Arizona 86326 4 Telephone: 928.639.4747 FAX: 928.639.2190 5 6 Attorney for Defendants Home Mortgage, Inc., Carl Brown, Molly Brown 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 OBJECTION IS HEREBY ENTERED TO THE FOLLOWING: vs. HOME MORTGAGE, INC., an Arizona corporation conducting business in Arizona; CARL BROWN; MOLLY BROWN; GREG BROWN; JANE DOE BROWN; DOES 1-10; XYZ CORPORATIONS; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS; DEFENDANTS. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CATHLEEN CHANNEL; THERESA WHARRY; STACIE HANSON; MONIQUE NICHOLS; PLAINTIFFS, NO.: CIV2003-100PHXROS OBJECTION TO: 1. PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS; 2. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF LODGING PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT; 3. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND TAXABLE COSTS; 4. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND TAXABLE COSTS.

23 PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COSTS. The costs incurred are clearly excessive given the fact that 24 the Plaintiffs sued the wrong party in the first place, missed a Statute of Limitation deadline, 25 obtained a Default Judgment without serving the proper Defendants and allowing those 26 27 on errors of their own, and that of their attorney. The costs claimed are clearly excessive and 28 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 199 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 5 Defendants the opportunity to properly appear and defend. Plaintiffs are basing their claims

1

should not be allowed, given the above. HAD THE PLAINTIFFS DONE IT RIGHT THE FIRST

2 TIME, AT LEAST MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE COSTS SHOULD NEVER HAD 3 ACCRUED, AT ALL. These Defendants should not be burdened by the ineptitude of some 4 one else. 5 6 7 8 9 advised of ANY judgment, amended or otherwise, UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. Second, the Plaintiffs have NEVER proven their damages other than mere declarations of entitlement. PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF LODGING PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT. This proposed form of Judgment is erroneous in several respects. First, Carl and Molly Brown were never

10 Thus, interest pre-judgment or post judgment should not apply. Third, Plaintiffs' Attorney 11 claims attorney's fees in the amount of $4,390.82 (Document 196-2) and then miraculously 12 that figure escalates in two paragraphs to almost $80,000 later. Fourth, Plaintiff's Attorney 13 14 20, 2007. IT ISN'T EVEN OCTOBER 20, 2007, TODAY. 15 16 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND TAXABLE COSTS. As states on Document 196-2 dated 10/05/2007 that there have been no payments as of October

17 stated above in paragraph 2, the Plaintiffs' Attorney can't jump from $4,000 to $80,000 in two 18 paragraphs in the same pleading for his share of the pie. It is ludicrous, unthinkable, non19 sensical and simple money grubbing. 20 21 22 23 Plaintiffs have gone with respect to generating paper most of which has already been PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND TAXABLE COSTS. This document alone demonstrates the lengths to which the

24 regurgitated over and over again by the attorney for the Plaintiff's. It is almost ½" thick. It 25 includes such statements as "HMI was insolvent." No evidence was ever adduced to that 26 effect. HMI was defunct as to the Arizona Corporation Commission only. No evidence was 27 shown that Carl Brown "completely controlled HMI's operations." In fact, his own son said that Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 199 2 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 5

1

he controlled the Las Vegas office. Carl Brown never "unreasonably expanded and delayed

2 these proceedings." The claims at pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 are superfluous nonsense. No mention 3 was made at trial of "First Palm" or "Atlantic Mortgage" or "Realty Home Mortgage" or the 4 "Mortgage Bank". The claims "refusal to answer some questions at all" and "his practice of 5 6 7 8 9 approach", "dilatory and disrespectful conduct", "falsely claimed", "utter complete falsehoods", "absolute refusal to provide testimony on items on which he most certainly had knowledge", providing intentional false answers to Plaintiffs' deposition questions, combined with Defendants absolute refusal to provide relevant documentary evidence", "uncooperative

10 "feign ignorance", "obstinacy", are inflammatory, argumentative, hyperbole and certainly 11 unnecessary to make in an application for an award for attorney's fees. Carl Brown is almost 12 80 years old. One must ask oneself where or what you were doing LAST WEEK. 13 14 "difficult". Had Counsel for the Plaintiffs spent more time on the basis of the claim, instead of 15 16 generating 5 file boxes of paper, he would have realized what did or did not occur in this case The NOVELTY AND DIFFICULTY OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED in this case were not

17 and obviated the necessity for a trial. 18 The SKILL REQUISITE TO PERFORM THE LEGAL SERVICES PROPERLY to obtain from 19 "completely uncooperative adversaries" is another red herring. The Plaintiffs already had a 20 21 22 23 24 does that take? If PRECLUSION OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT BY COUNSEL for Plaintiffs is an issue, one judgment, all they needed to do was execute on it. A simple search of the Arizona Corporation Commission website would have given the Plaintiffs their likely target(s). How much "skill"

25 must ask how obsessive and compulsive he was about this one. Obviously, the time claimed 26 and paper generated must have consumed most of his days and nights. 27 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 199 3 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 5

1

CUSTOMARY FEES? Counsel for Plaintiffs acknowledges he changed his fees throughout

2 the course of this litigation. 3 FEE AGREEMENT? There has been no indication that these Plaintiffs actually compensated 4 their attorney on an hourly basis. 5 6 sufficed. It never was received. 7 8 AMOUNT OF MONEY/VALUE OF THE RIGHTS INVOLVED AND RESULTS. They have TIME LIMITATIONS? A simple letter in the first place for a request for wages would have

9 already been determined and are subject to Appeal. 10 EXPERIENCE, REPUTATION, AND ABILITY OF COUNSEL. These are all relative terms 11 and 12 13 14 15 UNDESIRABILITY OF THE CASE. This is arguably an interesting subject. On the one hand cannot be judged from merely a self-aggrandizing affidavit. Years in

practice=experience? Maybe. Reputation? There is nothing in the Affidavit about that. Ability of Counsel? If generating paper=ability, then no doubt.

16 Counsel says it was not a particularly undesirable case but on the other hand pursuing people 17 of "terrific wealth" was what turned into a sporting event of sorts. Obviously, Counsel for 18 Plaintiffs' has little or no experience with indigent clients, with "no" wealth. 19 20 21 attorney's file that any "Nevada attorney had been unable to obtain from HMI payment of their 22 23 24 wages." In conclusion, Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees are clearly excessive especially They sued the wrong entity (defunct) from the outset, Defendants take great exception to the reference by Plaintiffs' Counsel to their "litigation conduct" and their "conduct during trial." Furthermore, there is nothing in the record or this

25 considering the factors above.

26 exceeded the statute of limitations, amended their suit, had a judgment but didn't do the 27 research with the Corporation Commission to figure out who to execute that judgment against, Document 199 4 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 5

Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA

1

and bungled along nevertheless to trial, and ultimately were the ones precipitating the

2 generation of excessive and unnecessary effort and fees/costs on behalf of Plaintiffs' Counsel. 3 References made to an unwillingness of the Defendants to mediate in Flagstaff with Judge 4 Aspey fall on deaf ears. These Defendants approached that mediation in good faith and even 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 /s/ James M. McGee James M. McGee Attorney for DEFENDANTS Home Mortgage, Inc.; Carl I. Brown and Molly S. Brown. DATED this 15th day of October, 2007. endured threats and physical aggression from Plaintiffs' Counsel afterwards. fees/costs should be denied, verdict notwithstanding. As such,

12 Copy of the foregoing: e-filed/faxed/mailed this 15th day of October, 2007 to: 13 14 The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver U.S. District Court Clerk-Phoenix 15 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Counsel for Plaintiffs-Shields 16 Client 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 199 5 By: /s/ Tina McGee

Filed 10/15/2007

Page 5 of 5