Joint Appendix (Part 1)

Case 2:10-cv-02225-JAK-JC Document 197 Filed 05/22/12 Page 13 of 14 Page ID#:3380UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES – GENERALCase No. LA CV10-02225 JAK (JCx) Date May 22, 2012TitleJake Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc., et al.In considering the reasonableness of the fee request, the Court has considered several factors:(i) the nature of the legal and factual issues presented in this matter, including the absence of issuesthat are either extremely complex or novel; (ii) the reasonableness of the hourly rates proposed foreach of Handal and Dushane given their respective levels of legal experience both in general and as topatent matters; (iii) the reasonableness of the hours each devoted to the particular tasks described intheir respective billing summaries; (iv) the level of skill and sophistication each displayed to the Court inboth the pleadings they filed and in their respective courtroom performances during pre-trial and trialproceedings; (v) the overlap in the work that each performed, particularly given that Handal first joinedas counsel in the matter after it had been pending for approximately a year and spent a substantialamount of time at the outset getting up to speed by reviewing pleadings and other materials related tothe case with which Dushane was already familiar; (vi) the amount of time that Handal and Dushanespent communicating with each other given that they had different roles in the litigation, e.g., Handalbecame lead trial counsel when he appeared in the action, and each had a separate law practice andoffice -- Handal’s in Connecticut and Dushane’s in California; (vii) the amount of time Handal chargedfor travelling between Connecticut and Los Angeles in connection with his representation of Plaintiffand the time that Dushane charged for travel from Houston to Los Angeles following the deposition ofDefendant Chander in Houston; (viii) that on seven particular days, Dushane recorded chargesbetween 16.75 and 18.25 hours and that on one trial day Handal charged 18.5 hours; (ix) the successand lack of success that Plaintiff’s counsel had on certain motions they brought and opposed on behalfof Plaintiff; and (x) the amount of time that each had to spend in response to certain of the aggressivelitigation positions taken by Defendants’ counsel.Based on the foregoing factors, the Court has determined that an appropriate award of fees inthis matter is $231,025. The Court reached this figure by applying the foregoing factors, which resultedin a reduction of Handal’s requested hours from 307.7 to 252.7, while maintaining his hourly rate of$500, and a reduction of Dushane’s hours from 563.9 to 395, while reducing his hourly rate from $300to $265. The Court determined this hourly rate based on a comparison of the rates of the two counselalong with their respective responsibilities in the matter and the professional skills that eachdemonstrated. This results in an award of $126,350 with respect to Handal’s time ($500 per hour x252.7 hours = $126,350), which is a reduction of $24,350 (approximately 16%). This results in anaward of $104,675 for Dushane’s time ($265 per hour x 395 hours = $104,675), which is a reduction of$64,495 (approximately 38%). Thus, the total award is $231,025, which is a total reduction of $91,995($323,020 – 91,995 = $231,025), or approximately 28.5%.In making the adjustments to the hours of each attorney, the Court reviewed their respectivebilling statements and made hourly adjustments with respect to certain time charges based on theaforementioned criteria. With respect to Dushane’s hourly rate, the Court considered theaforementioned factors, as well as Dushane’s forthright statement to the Court at oral argument that noCV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 13 of 14-A30-