Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Low Offices
1 Bnoznme Online Wooos a. Wu.soN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2 Ii22 Eost Jefferson Street
Post Office Box 20527
3 Phoenix, Arizono 85036
602 27I-7700
JAMES R. BROEIQING, #004036, jrb b0wwIaw.c0m
4 ROBERT T. SULLIVAN, #022719, rts bowwIaw.com
5 ALICYN M. FREEMAN, #023916, amf bowwIaw.com
6 tttttttneyt. tttt Defendants K-Zell Metals, Inc.; Donald and Barbara Kammerzell
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
TRUE CENTER GATE LEASING, INC.,
10 an Arizona corporation,
11 Plaintiff, NO. CIV 02 1109 PHX DGC
12 v.
STATEMENT OF
13 SONORAN GATE, L.L.C., an Arizona CONSULTATION
Limited Liability Company; K-ZELL
14 METALS, INC., an Arizona corgoration;
DONALD KAMMERZELL and ARBARA
15 KAIVIMERZELL, husband and wife;
MIKE T. O’CONNOR, an individual,
16
Defendants.
17
18 STATE OF ARIZONA E
ss.
19 County of Maricopa
20 Robert T. Sullivan, being tirst duly sworn under oath, states:
21 1. I have personal knowledge of the matters and facts stated in this
22 Statement of Consultation and, if sworn as a witness, am competent to testify with regard
23 to such matters.
24 2. In early December 2005, I consulted with Thomas G. Watkins, III,
25 telephonically, in an attempt to resolve the disputed attorneys' fees issues.
26 I I I
S:\RTS\I·<-ZelI\Stm-ConsuIt.wpd
10000.52.0
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-11 Filed O1/17/2006 Paget of4

1 3. On January 4, 2006, I sent Thomas G. Watkins, lll, a letter outlining
2 how the attorneys fees issue could be resolved. (See, Correspondence dated January
3 4, 2006, attached hereto as Appendix 1).
4 4. I made additional telephone calls to Thomas G. Watkins, Ill to resolve
5 the issue.
6 5. After personal consultation and good faith efforts to do so, the parties
7 have been unable to satisfactorily resolve all disputed issues relating to attorneys fees.
8 Executed this E day of January, 2006, at Phoenix, Arizona.
9 .
10 I .· A
11 I
12 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to bef re methis@day ofJanuary, 2006
13 by Robert T. Sullivan.
14
15 l\/ly Commission Expires: @1%; Egg? Am gg
_____ otary u ic
16
tr 1 l‘“““ Bé6%AE‘3l3i~°tv”’°ri`
My comm. Exptrcs une . ¢';__
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
sggcgsggbzelnlstm-consuitwpc 2
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-11 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 2 of 4

n L A W 0 F F I C E S - -
· P·I:;$;l;rczrBox 20527. n Mig; Scum $·r.u>i.s·r Diuvz
P . Ani A 8503
yljitigiilippkgij? 6 TITZONA 85204
W II22 Ertsr Imsasou Sriuzsr (602) 27¥‘77U0
- _ N Fax (480) 503-I2l2
GODS $:2;;%*:;:* 85°34
G _ Fwx (602) 258-7785
. ROBERT T. SULLIVAN
\XALsoN r i2:.i"l¢.?2‘::
[email protected]
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
" ruuooszu _
l January 4, 2006
Thomas G. Watkins, III l
ATTORNEY AT LAW
‘ 5330 East Palomino Road A
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 _
~ Re: K-ZELL adv. TRUE CENTER GATES
1 Dear Tom: i j
' I am enclosing a complete copy of our bill in the above—referenced matter.
As you know, my clients believe t_hat they are entitled to $196,363.39 in attomeys’ fees.
Contrary to the pleading you filed with the court, the majority of the aItorneys' fees incurred
prior to the granting of the motion for summary judgment did not deal with the patent
. issues. Rather, they involved, generally, the issues relating to the breach of contract claim,
trade secret, trademark infringement and other claims.
- ‘ The majority ofthe attorneys' fees dealt with general matters that could, quite
understandably, be related to the breach of contract claim. Specifically, that breach of
contract claim focused on the alleged taking of confidential/trade secret information from
‘ your client by Don Kammerzell. Of the fees incurred, 50 to 60 percent related to litigation
_ in general or, specifically, to the breach of contract claim. While some of the facts used
to defend the breach of contract claim--also relate to the trademark and trade secret claims,
those issues cannot be separated. Accordingly, we believe that 50 to 60 percent of the
attomeys’ fees incurred are directly recoverable without any further showing to the Court.
D With respect to the attomeys’ fees associated with irademnarigs-,.iraue secrets
and related issues, l recognize my client must show some sort of exceptional case in order
to recover those fees. Needless to say, we believe that the entire lawsuit, your cIient‘s
actions and the failure to produce evidence demonstrate the requisite elements of an
exceptional case. Specifically, all ofthe plans were never disclosed to my client, despite .
being requested, you stipulated at the first day of trial that the video played was requested _
and yet not produced to my client, Dave Russ' treatment of me and my paralegal while at
- E A APPENDIX 1
SERVING OUR CLIENTS AND COMMUNITY $iNC2E I97B
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-11 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 3 of 4

Thomas AG. Watkins, Ill .
January 4, 2006
Page 2 .
the True Center Gate facility, and the filing of baseless claims and motions throughout the
_ course of the litigation, are all evidence of an exceptional case. I believe, based on my
review ofthe records, that 20 to 30 percent of the fees incurred relate to these issues.
With respect to the patent claims, the remaining fees are related to those claims.
To resolve the attorneys’ fees issues, my client is willing to accept $150,000
in attomeys' fees, $10,000 in non-taxable court costs, and $9,628.30 in taxable court costs.
This letter is sent to you with the hope of resolving the matter prior to filing
our brief on the motion for attomeys’ fees and incurring even more attorneys' fees.
. Accordingly, please review the letter and discuss it with your client as soon as possible.
I look fomrard to hearing from you regarding this matter. As always, please
feel free to contact me with any questions, comments or concems.
ROBERT T. SULLIVAN ` ·
For the Fim1 _ n
RTS:es
Enclosure . _
S:\RTS\K-Zell\Corres\Watkins-I.04.wpd ‘ »
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-11 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 4 of 4