Free Reply in Support of Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

David N. Ingrassia (#010936) DAVID N. INGRASSIA, P.C. 1212 East Osborn Road Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: (602) 604-0099 Facsimile: (602) 604-0110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CITICAPITAL TECHNOLOGY FINANCE, INC., formerly known as EAB Leasing Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation, and CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL LEASING CORPORATION, formerly known as Associates Leasing, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. GRANT H. GOODMAN AND TERI B. GOODMAN, husband and wife, Defendants. Plaintiffs, CitiCapital Technology Finance, Inc. ("CitiCapital") and General Electric Capital Corporation ("GE") (sometimes collectively "Plaintiffs"), by their counsel undersigned, hereby submit this Reply In Support Of Application For Attorney's Fees And Related Non-Taxable Expenses and respectfully request this Court to enter an Order awarding CitiCapital attorney's fees in the amount of $33,109.50 and costs in the amount of $2,351.53 in connection with this matter Case No. CV03-01587 PHX JAT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND RELATED NONTAXABLE EXPENSES

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 1 of 7

and GE attorney's fees in the amount of $33,313.20 and costs in the amount of $1,968.62 in connection with this matter. This Reply is supported by Plaintiff's August 4, 2006 Application For Attorney's Fees And Related Non-Taxable Expenses, the following memorandum of points and authorities, and the entire record in this matter. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. BACKGROUND Defendants have not objected to Citicapital's nontaxable costs in the amount of $2,351.53 and GE's nontaxable costs in the amount of $1,968.62. Instead, Defendants filed an unintelligible, vague, and baseless objection apparently limited solely to the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees sought by the Plaintiffs. In that regard, Defendants claim the amount of fees sought is unreasonable purportedly because: (i) "there was absolutely no discovery taken in this matter and ... no marketing, sales information, or other matters which counsel would have to review the disposition of the plaintiffs' assets"; (ii) "no more than five hours" of time should be awarded for time spent on Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and Defendants cross motion for summary judgment; (iii) time spent on the trial should be limited to some undisclosed number "under $4,000"; and (iv) the amount at issue in this case is irrelevant in determining the amount of Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. As set forth more fully below, none of the Defendants' challenges have any merit whatsoever.

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 2 of 7

II.

ANALYSIS A. Time Spent Responding To Defendants' Extensive Discovery

Requests Was Reasonable. It is inaccurate to state that "there was absolutely no discovery taken in this matter". The Court record in this case will reflect that Defendants served the Plaintiffs with extensive discovery requests in the form of Non-Uniform Interrogatories, Requests For Production, and Requests For Admission. Plaintiff responded to Defendants' discovery on July 16, 2004, supplemented its responses thereto on August 5, 2004, further supplemented its responses thereto on August 19, 2004, and further supplemented its responses thereto on December 1, 2004. In addition to responding to Defendants Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, Plaintiff turned over requested documentation exceeding 500 pages in length1. Accordingly, the time spent responding to Defendants extensive discovery requests was reasonable. B. The Time Spent On Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment

And Defendants Cross Motion For Summary Judgment Was Reasonable. Defendants' claim that no more than five hours should be awarded for time spent on the motions for summary judgment.

1

The Court needs to look no further than Plaintiffs' trial exhibits in this matter. Those documents were requested by the Defendants.

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 3 of 7

Some Judges in this district have observed that the cost associated with a motion for summary judgment is in the $35,000.00 - $45,000.00 range. This Court is no doubt aware of the issues raised by the Defendants. In this case, Plaintiff was forced to respond to the Defendants' legal position in their briefs including a detailed analysis of the numerous cases cited by the Defendants and providing the Court with the Plaintiffs' position on the law. Accordingly, the time spent on the motions for summary judgment was reasonable. C. Time Spent On The Trial Was Reasonable.

Defendants claim that only $4,000 should be awarded for the time spent handling the trial, copying and filing records, and closing arguments. The Court is well aware that the position taken by the Defendants in this case forced the Plaintiffs to prove each and every element of their claim in excruciating detail. Accordingly, the time spent on the time spent on the trial was reasonable. D. The Amount In Controversy Has A Direct Bearing On The

Reasonableness Of The Total Amount Of Attorney's Fees Requested. Plaintiffs' counsel has over nineteen years of commercial debt collection experience. A reasonable attorney's fee award in this case would be thirty-three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the amount in controversy. Even though a thirtythree and one-third percent (33.3%) of the amount in controversy is a reasonable attorney's fee, the Plaintiffs have asked this Court to award less than nineteen

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 4 of 7

percent (19%) of the $356,830.20 (exclusive of interest) amount at issue in this case. Accordingly, the total amount of fees requested is reasonable under the circumstances. III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01 and the contracts at issue in this case, CitiCapital respectfully requests this Court to enter an order awarding CitiCapital attorney's fees in the amount of $33,109.50 and costs in the amount of $2,351.53 in connection with this matter, and GE respectfully requests this Court to enter an order awarding GE attorney's fees in the amount of $33,313.20 and costs in the amount of $1,968.62 in connection with this matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

DAVID N. INGRASSIA, P.C. /s/ David N. Ingrasssia DAVID N. INGRASSIA 1212 East Osborn Road Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 5 of 7

Original of the foregoing filed and a copy e-mailed to [email protected] and a copy mailed this 22nd day of August, 2006, to: Honorable James A. Teilborg 401 W. Washington Suite 523 SPC 51 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Grant H. Goodman Grant H. Goodman, PLLC 5110 N. 44th Street, Suite L-200 Phoenix, AZ 85018 /s/ David N. Ingrassia

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 6 of 7

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 104

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 7 of 7