Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 323

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and for Incentive Compensation Awards; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. Motion set for hearing on 6/27/2016 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Randall S. Newman, # 2 Declaration of Daniel J. Schacht, # 3 Declaration of Kara M. Wolke, # 4 Proposed Order) (Manifold, Betsy)

1 FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
gregorek(@whafh.com ·
2 BETSY C":'MANIFOLD (182450)
manifold(@whafh.com
3 RACHEL'£ R. RICKERT (190634)
rickert(@whafh.com
4 MARIS--A C. LIVESAY (22324 7)
livesay(@whafh.com
5 BRITTANY N. DEJONG (258766)
fi_ejong(@whafh.com
6 WOL1t11ALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
7 750 B Stree~ Suite 2770
San Diego, cA 92101
8 Telephone: [phone]
9 Facsimile: 619/234-4599
1o Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the [Proposed} Class

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -

WESTERN DIVISION
13
) Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
14 GOOD MORNING TO YOU
)
PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,
15
) DECLARATION OF RANDALL S.
) NEWMAN IN SUPPORT OF FINAL
Plaintiffs,
16
) APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
17
) SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
v.
) ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
18
19 WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, ) EXPENSES
)
INC., et al.
20
) Room:.
650
Hon. George H. King, Chief
21
Defendants.
) Judge:
Judge
)
22
) Date:
June 27, 2016
9:30 a.m.
23
) Time:

241+--~~~~~~~~-)
25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned, Randall S. Newman, Esquire, under penalty of perjury,

2 hereby declares and states as follows:
3

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York

4 and the State of California. I am now a partner of the law firm Wolf Haldenstein
5 Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("WHAFH"), Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
6 in this litigation. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein
7 concerning all matters pertaining to this Action and, if called upon, I could and
8 would competently testify thereto.
9

2.

I submit this Declaration m support of Plaintiffs' motions for final

10 approval of the Settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
11 expenses. These motions and supporting memoranda of law are filed concurrently
12 herewith.
13

3.

From the time this action was commenced until April 11, 2016, I

14 maintained a solo law practice named Randall S. Newman, P.C. ("RSN, P.C.").
15 However, on April 11, 2016, I became a partner of WHAFH. I am submitting this
16 declaration to describe the work I performed and the expenses I incurred in this
17 Action as a solo practitioner, not any work I performed after joining WHAFH.
18 WHAFH has no interest in the fees or expenses that may be awarded and allocated to
19 RSN, P.C.
20

4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of my resume, setting forth my

21 qualifications.
22

5.

This Declaration sets forth the nature of the work I performed in the

23 Action, prior to joining WHAFH, to demonstrate why Plaintiffs' motion for final
24 approval of the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, why Plaintiffs'
25 Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses is reasonable, and why both
26 should be approved by the Court.
27

6.

Prior to WHAFH's involvement in this action, I personally spent an

28 extensive amount of time conducting a historical factual investigation into the history
1
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1

of Happy Birthday as well as conducting an extensive amount of legal research about

2

the 1909 Copyright Act. After I was convinced by the research I had done that a

3

challenge to Defendants' ownership of Happy Birthday's copyright had merit, I

4

contacted Mark C. Rifkin, Esquire, at WHAFH to present the research I had found. I

5

have known Mr. Rifkin and worked with him as co-counsel on several matters since

6

2007, and I knew WHAFH had the capabilities of successfully litigating this Action.

7

7.

As the Court is aware, the Action was actively and aggressively litigated

8

by Plaintiffs' Counsel until the Settlement was reached on February 8, 2016. For

9

their part, Defendants (and, to a lesser extent, the Intervenors) vigorously defended

10

themselves against Plaintiffs' claims. The case presented novel and complex issues

11

and posed great risk to both sides.

12

8.

During the Action, Defendants' factual and legal theories constantly

13

changed, prompting new factual investigations and new legal responses from

14

Plaintiffs to each successive (and sometimes conflicting) theory Defendants offered

15

in defense of their copyright claims. Nothing about the litigation was simple.

16
17
18

9.

RSN P.C. has represented Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions

Corp. ("GMTY") and Robert Siegel ("Siegel") throughout the litigation.
10.

RSN P.C. was involved in all the major efforts by Plaintiffs' Counsel

19

during the Action. Those efforts fell into eight distinct phases of the litigation: (a)

20

Pre-filing Investigation and Initial Complaint Drafting; (b) Amended Complaint

21

Drafting; (c) Motion to Dismiss Response; (d) Discovery; (e) Cross-Motions for

22

Summary Judgment; (f) Trial Preparation; (g) Settlement Negotiations; and (h)

23

Settlement Approval and Administration. RSN P.C. 's work in each phase of the

24

litigation is described in detail below.

25

11.

Recognizing the historical significance of the Action, and anticipating

26

that Defendants would likely mount an extremely vigorous defense to the claims

27

being asserted, I personally performed much of the factual work that was needed to

28

successfully litigation this Action.
2
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1

12.

The information in this declaration regarding RSN, P.C.'s time and

2

expenses is taken directly from time and expense printouts and supporting

3

documentation prepared and maintained by me in the ordinary course of business. I

4

conducted the day-to-day activities in the litigation and I reviewed these printouts

5 (and backup documentation where necessary or appropriate) in connection with the
6 preparation of this declaration.
7

The purpose of this review was to confirm the

accuracy of the entries on the printouts as well as the necessity for, and

8 reasonableness of, the time and expenses committed to the litigation. As a result of
9

my review, certain reductions were made to both time and expenses in the exercise of

10

billing judgment. As a result of this review and the adjustments made, I believe that

11

the time reflected in RSN, P.C.'s lodestar calculation and the expenses for which

12

payment is sought as set forth in this declaration are reasonable in amount and were

13

necessary for the effective and efficient prosecution and resolution of the litigation.

14

In addition, I believe that these expenses are all of a type that would be normally

15

charged to a fee-paying client in the private legal market.

16

13.

After the reductions referred to above, the number of hours spent on the

17

litigation by RSN, P.C. is 2,193. My current hourly rate is $640 per hour, which is

18

the hourly rate charged by WHAFH to its fee-paying clients for my services. I have

19

used this hourly rate to calculate the lodestar for RSN, P.C. A breakdown of the

20

lodestar of RSN, P.C. is provided below.

21

A.

Pre-filing Investigation and Initial Complaint Drafting

22

14.

Before commencing the first of these Actions on behalf of Plaintiff

23

GMTY, and prior to WHAFH's involvement in this Action, I conducted an

24

exhaustive investigation of the history and origin of the Song. Among other things, I

25

obtained and reviewed many historical source materials, including records at the

26

New York Public Library, records at Columbia University, records of the Copyright

27

Office, records from the Library of Congress, records at the National Archive,

28

records at the New York County Surrogate's Court and books, newspapers,
3
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1 periodicals, and manuscripts. I also purchased several original books dating back to
2
3

1911 to ensure the accuracy of the factual allegations in the Complaint.
15.

I also conducted extensive legal research regarding the various

4

Copyright Acts in effect since the Song's predecessor, Good Morning to All, was

5

created sometime before 1893. I reviewed thousands of pages of documents related

6

to the 1909 Copyright Act, including many of the Copyright Law Revision Studies

7

that were available online at the U.S. Copyright Office.

8
9
10
11
12
13

16.

WHAFH and I met with our clients and with Robert Brauneis, Esquire,

to discuss many of the issues likely to arise in the action.
17.

I personally participated in all of these efforts, and I drafted or reviewed

every version of the original Complaint that was eventually filed in this Action.
18.

The work performed by me during this phase of the litigation 1s

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit B.

14

B.

Amended Complaint Drafting

15

19.

After the initial complaints were filed, I worked cooperatively under Mr.

16

Rifkin's guidance to prosecute the Action efficiently and effectively. In coordination

17

with the other Plaintiffs' Counsel, I drafted, reviewed, and revised the various

18

consolidated and amended complaints that were filed, including the first consolidated

19

complaint in this Court as well as all subsequent amended consolidated complaints.

20

We refined these pleadings to incorporate new information that we discovered (both

21

as a result of our ongoing independent investigation and through formal discovery)

22

and to address the various (and constantly changing) factual and legal theories

23

offered by Defendants in defense of their copyright claims.

24
25

20.

The work performed by RSN, P.C. during this phase of the litigation is

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit C.

26

C.

Motion to Dismiss Response

27

21.

During this phase of the litigation, I helped WHAFH develop and

28

implement Plaintiffs' successful opposition to Defendants' lengthy and complex
4
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1 motion to dismiss. Under Mr. Rifkin's direction, I conducting legal research and
2
3
4

drafting on Plaintiffs' response papers in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
22.

The work performed by RSN, P.C. is summarized in the chart in the

chart attached hereto as Exhibit D.

5

D.

Discovery

6

23.

During this phase of the litigation, I assisted WHAFH in drafting

7

multiple written discovery requests upon Defendants and non-Parties, including the

8 American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP"), Intervenor
9

The Hill Foundation ("Foundation") and multiple major motion picture studios. I

10

also continued the exhaustive informal investigation of the historical facts, including

11

inspection of original court records and documents and other information voluntarily

12

provided to us by various sources from around the world. I worked closely with

13

WHAFH to do so without duplicating efforts or incurring any unnecessary expense.

14

24.

I also assisted in drafting Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' written

15

discovery requests. Again, I worked with WHAFH to gather the factual information

16

from Plaintiff GMTY. In addition, I reviewed draft discovery submitted by other

17

Plaintiffs' Counsel, and I reviewed and edited draft discovery responses prepared by

18

other Plaintiffs' Counsel.

19

25.

In addition to the documents we obtained independently from other

20

sources, I personally reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents produced by

21

Defendants, ASCAP, non-parties, and the Foundation through formal discovery.

22
23
24

26.

I also helped WHAFH prepare for and was present for the depositions of

two fact witnesses.
27.

I also worked with WHAFH and Joel Sachs, Ph.D., Professor of Music

25

History at the Juilliard School in New York, to review certain of the historical

26

evidence we obtained, principally the copyrights and sheet music, and to review

27

some of Defendants' various defenses to Plaintiffs' claims.

28

28.

The work performed by RSN, P.C. during this phase of the litigation is
5
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1 summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit E.
2

E.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

3

29.

During this phase of the litigation, I was principally responsible for

4

preparmg the Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and responding to

5 Defendants' Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. I also worked extensively with
6

Betsy Manifold in preparing the Joint Appendix as I had detailed knowledge of the

7

factual record because I had previously reviewed each and every document that was

8

produced during discovery and became a part of the Joint Appendix.

9

30.

Additionally, I assisted WHAFH in conducting legal research and

10

drafted portions of the Plaintiffs summary judgment joint motion papers, which

11

involved extensive negotiation and coordination with Defendants' counsel

12

(particularly as Defendants' factual theories changed throughout the summary

13

judgment process).

14

31.

After the initial hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, I

15

assisted WHAFH in conducting the additional legal and factual research required to

16

respond to the Court's specific inquiry regarding the issue of abandonment.

17

assisted WHAFH in drafting, editing, and revising Plaintiffs' portion of the joint

18

supplemental response papers on the cross-motions for summary judgment.

19
20

32.

I

The work performed by my firm during this phase of the litigation is

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit F.

21

F.

Trial Preparation

22

33.

After the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the

23

basis that Defendants did not own a copyright to the Song's melody or lyrics, I

24

assisted WHAFH in preparing the case for trial. I assisted WHAFH in developing

25

Plaintiffs' trial strategies and assisted in the preparation of all the pre-trial and trial

26

materials.

27

34.

28

WHAFH was responsible for preparing the trial exhibits and trial brief

for the trial, which was scheduled to begin on December 8, 2015. I worked with
6
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1 WHAFH to help them complete Plaintiffs' Exhibit List and Witness List.
2

35.

Although this work was performed simultaneously with settlement

3

negotiations (discussed in Section G below), I assisted in completing all of the

4

extensive preparations necessary for trial with the expectation that a settlement

5 would not be reached and that the case would be tried on December 15 and 16, 2015.
6
7

36.

The work performed by my firm during this phase of the litigation is

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit G.

8

G.

Settlement Negotiations

9

37.

During this phase of the litigation, I assisted WHAFH in negotiating the

10

settlement with Defendants' counsel.

11

WHAFH to developed Plaintiffs' settlement objectives and assisted in preparing

12

Plaintiffs' settlement strategy.

13

38.

I consulted with the Plaintiffs and with

Soon after the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary

14 judgment and denied Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, on October
15

28, 2015, Mr. Rifkin and I met in person with Glenn Pomerantz, Esquire, one of

16

Defendants' counsel, as directed by the Court to begin the process of exploring

17

settlement of the litigation. WHAFH and Mr. Pomerantz eventually agreed upon an

18

experienced and well-respected settlement mediator, David Rotman, Esquire, to help

19

facilitate further settlement negotiations. I also reviewed the information provided

20

by Defendants so that I could assist WHAFH in estimating the potential size of the

21

Class and the value of Plaintiffs' and the Class's claims. Furthermore, I prepared

22

detailed spreadsheets based upon records I discovered in the New York County

23

Surrogate's Court to calculate an estimate of the value of the Class's claims which I

24

provided to WHAFH.

25

39.

I assisted WHAFH in preparing the mediation statement for Plaintiffs.

26

40.

After lengthy preparation, Mr. Rifkin, Ms. Manifold, and I attended an

27

all-day mediation session with counsel for Defendants, counsel for the Intervenors,

28

and Mr. Rotman at his office in San Francisco on December 1, 2015. The mediation
7
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1

session began early in the morning and lasted until late in the evening. Mr. Rotman

2

facilitated an open and frank dialog among all three Parties, and conducted several

3

private sessions with counsel for the Parties.

4

41.

At the end of that lengthy process, I assisted WHAFH in analyzing the

5

settlement proposed by Mr. Rotman in his confidential mediator's proposal based on

6

the spreadsheets I had prepared.

7

42.

On December 8, 2015, counsel for all the Parties notified Mr. Rotman

8

that they had accepted the material terms of a settlement contained in his confidential

9

mediator's proposal.

10

43.

Thereafter, over the next two months, I assisted WHAFH in reviewing

11

and editing the Settlement Agreement with Defendants' counsel. As Mr. Rifkin states

12

in his Declaration, the process of drafting the Settlement Agreement was long,

13

arduous, and often highly contentious. Nearly every material term, and many

14

ancillary terms, was hard-fought. On more than one occasion, Defendants sought to

15

revise or re-negotiate the terms of the mediator's proposal which all Parties had

16

expressly accepted and, at the last minute, the Intervenors also sought to re-negotiate

17

a settlement term. Twice, the settlement was in jeopardy of falling apart, and we

18

were required to seek Mr. Rotman's intervention to preserve the settlement.

19
20
21
22

44.

Ultimately, after exhaustive negotiations, the Parties executed the

Settlement Agreement on February 8, 2016.
45.

The work performed by my firm during this phase of the litigation is

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit H.

23

H.

Settlement Approval and Administration

24

46.

During this phase of the litigation, I assisted WHAFH in obtaining

25

preliminary approval of the Settlement and final approval of the Settlement.

26

assisted WHAFH in preparing the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed

27

settlement. I attended the preliminary approval hearing on February 29, 2016.

28

47.

I

The work performed by my firm during this last phase of the litigation is
8
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1
2

summarized in the chart attached hereto as Exhibit I.
48.

I expect that I will continue to be involved in the final settlement

3

approval now that I have joined WHAFH as a partner and I expect to be present at

4

the final approval hearing on June 27, 2016.

5

I.

Expenses

6

49.

During the prosecution of the Action, RSN, P .C. incurred $8,567 .19 in

7

reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses, summarized in the following table:

8

Expense
Meals, Hotels & Transportation
Books
Photocopies

9
10
11

$8,567.19

TOTAL:

12
13

50.

14
15

Amount
$8,496.11
$71.08
$0.00

expenses:

The following is additional information regarding certain of these
(a) Transportation, Hotels & Meals: $8,496.11. In connection with the

16

prosecution of the case, RSN, P.C. has paid for travel expenses to attend court

17

hearings and to conduct factual research. The date, destination and purpose of

18

each trip is set forth in Exhibit J.

19

(b) Books: $71.06. In connection with the case, I purchased six (6)

20

historical books on Amazon.com including: 1) The Elementary Worker and

21

His Work (1911 edition) for $13.89; 2) The Elementary Worker and His Work

22

(1915 edition) for $13.89; 3) Harvest Hymns (1924 edition) for $7.98; 4)

23

Children's Praise and Worship (1928 edition) for $12.99; 5) The Everyday

24

Song Book (14th edition) for $11.98; and 6) The Everyday Song Book (4th

25

edition) for $10.35.

26

(c) Photocopies:

In connection with the case, I printed more than

27

10,000 pages of documents and scanned several thousand pages of documents.

28

However, it was not my practice to charge my clients for printing and
9
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

1

scannmg. Therefore, I have not included any expenses related to printing and

2

scanning in my expense request.

3

51.

The expenses I incurred in this Action are reflected in the books and

4

records of my firm. These books and records are prepared from credit card

5

statements, bank records and other source materials and are an accurate record of the

6

expenses incurred.

7

52.

The expenses I incurred were necessary and appropriate for the

8

prosecution of this Action, all of which was at risk in this litigation. These expenses

9

are a necessary part of litigation of this magnitude and scale and were essential to

10
11

enable Plaintiffs' Counsel to achieve the results now before the Court.
53.

I hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the

12

United States, that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my

13

knowledge, information, and belief.

14
15
16
17

Executed this 27th day of April, 2016, at New York, New York.

~~-~
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

26
27
28

10
NEWMAN DECL.
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWX)

EXHIBIT “A”
RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C. FIRM RESUME
Randall S. Newman has been licensed to practice law for more than 19 years
and licensed as an accountant for more than 20 years. Mr. Newman has experience
representing clients in both transactional and litigation matters.
Mr. Newman has worked in the legal field for more than 30 years, starting as
a docket clerk in Cleveland, Ohio at the age of 14. By the time he was 21, and
before proliferation of the Internet, Mr. Newman worked full-time at what is now
Squire Patton BoggsSanders LLP, one of the largest law firms in the United States
doing all the paper litigation filings in Cleveland, Ohio’s municipal, state and
federal courts. Additionally, Mr. Newman worked part-time at Deloitte, LLP
reviewing audited financial statements and he attended Cleveland State University
at night and on the weekends. Mr. Newman obtained a BBA in Accounting in
1992 and worked for two seasons in public accounting.
Mr. Newman attended the University of Akron School of Law (“Akron”)
full-time from 1994 to 1996. During his time at Akron, Mr. Newman won the
American Jurisprudence Award for Civil Procedure I and II and corporate taxation.
Mr. Newman also was a member of the Akron Law Review and was ranked in the
top 10 students in his class. After his second year at Akron, Mr. Newman was
accepted into New York University School of Law’s non-matriculated LL.M. in
Taxation program and attended J.D. and LL.M. classes at NYU from 1996 to 1997.
Those credits were transferred to Akron and Mr. Newman graduated magna cum
laude from Akron in May, 1997 and obtained an LL.M. in Taxation from NYU in
December, 1997.
Mr. Newman passed the California bar in July, 1997 and less than three
months later, Mr. Newman passed the November, 1997 Maryland CPA exam with
an average score of 93+. Mr. Newman won an award from the State of Maryland
for scoring one of the top 10 scores in the state on the 1997 CPA exam.
After graduating from NYU’s LL.M. in Taxation program in December,
1997, Mr. Newman worked as a transactional tax attorney until he became an
associate in the New York office of Dechert, LLP (“Dechert”) in 2000 litigating
state and local tax cases for Dechert’s corporate clients.

1

EXHIBIT A
Page 11

Mr. Newman is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court, the
United States Court of Claims, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the United
States District Court for the Western District of California, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Court of Appeal for the
Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
While at Dechert, Mr. Newman was instrumental in the taxpayer’s victory in
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue Services, 256 Conn. 455, 772 A.2d
593 (2001) before the Connecticut Supreme Court. In 2003, Mr. Newman started
Randall S. Newman, P.C.
In 2004, Mr. Newman commenced an action in the Southern District of New
York captioned as Newman & Associates v. J.K. Harris & Co., LLC, Case No. 04cv-9264 for violation of the unfair competition provisions of the Lanham Act. Mr.
Newman’s firm acted as the plaintiff in that action and the action resulted in
substantial changes to the claims J.K. Harris made in its advertising and resulted in
an often-cited decision on the issue of discovery of documents protected by
Federal Rule of Evidence 408, Newman & Associates v. J.K. Harris & Co., LLC,
2005 WL 3610140 (SDNY December 15, 2005). J.K. Harris ultimately paid
millions in fines and restitution to the attorneys’ general in at least 19 states.
In 2005, Mr. Newman commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Law Offices of Roni Lynn Deutch, a
California attorney for violation of the unfair competition provisions of the
Lanham Act captioned as Newman & Associates v. Law Office of Roni Deutch, 05cv-4789 (MGC). Once again Mr. Newman’s firm acted as the plaintiff in that
action. As a result of Mr. Newman’s action, Ms. Deutch agreed to not accept any
clients from New York State and made substantial revisions to her television
advertising. Mr. Newman worked closely with the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs and assisted them in filing an action against Ms. Deutch
captioned as Comm’r Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York v.
Roni Lynn Deutch, Index No. 403215/2005 (New York County Supreme Court).
As a result of Mr. Newman’s efforts, Ms. Deutch agreed to pay the City of New
York a total of $300,000, which included $200,000 in restitution to consumers and
$100,000 in fines. In 2010, the California Attorney General sued Ms. Deutch for

2

EXHIBIT A
Page 12

$34 million in the Superior Court of Sacramento and Ms. Deutch is no longer
eligible to practice law in the State of California.
In 2006, Mr. Newman filed a class-action complaint captioned Brown v.
American Tax Relief, LLC, Index No. 16771/2006 in New York Supreme Court,
Kings County and assisted New York City in filing a companion case captioned
Comm’r Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York v. American Tax
Relief, LLC, Index No. 402140/2006 (New York County Supreme Court).
American Tax Relief was a Beverly Hills based company, and was a competitor of
J.K. Harris and Roni Lynn Deutch. On September 24, 2010, the United States
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) obtained an ex parte restraining order and
asset freeze against American Tax Relief in a case captioned Federal Trade
Commission v. American Tax Relief, LLC, 10-cv-6123 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On January 29, 2013, the parties in the
FTC action agreed to a Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and other
Equitable Relief against whereby the FTC obtained a monetary judgment of
$103,387,291.62 and American Tax Relief surrendered more than $15 million in
cash.
After the J.K. Harris, Roni Lynn Deutch and American Tax Relief litigation,
Mr. Newman began representing homeowners in Truth in Lending, 15 U.S.C. §
1601, et seq. rescission claims. The Truth in Lending litigation resulted in several
reported decisions. One significant reported decision is Glucksman v. First
Franklin Financial Corp., 601 F.Supp.2d 511 (EDNY March 6, 2009) in which the
Court held that a homeowner could be in “foreclosure” for purposes of calculating
the TILA tolerance limits prior to the filing of the Summons and Complaint. Mr.
Newman obtained that decision against Reed Smith, one of the top 20 largest law
firms in the United States.
Many of the cases Mr. Newman initiated raise novel issues of law. For
example in a case of first impression, Decatrel v. Metro Loft Mgmt., LLC, 2010
NY Slip Op 52350 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010), the Court allowed the Plaintiff to assert a
cause of action under New York’s roommate law which prohibits a landlord from
restricting a tenant’s right to have a roommate. Another novel case Mr. Newman
filed was Maremont v. Fredman, Case No. 10-cv-7811, in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the Lanham Act in the
context of social media. Maremont resulted in two published decisions Maremont
v. Fredman, 772 F.Supp.2d 967 (2011) (decision on motion to dismiss) and
Maremont v. Fredman, 2011 WL 6101949 (N.D.Ill. December 7, 2011) (decision
on motion for summary judgment). Maremont was also widely followed by the
3

EXHIBIT A
Page 13

media and has been the subject of a Law Review Comment published on February
17, 2012 by a student at Northern Illinois University College of Law titled
Me.Com: The Growing Need for the Illinois Right of Publicity Act to Respond to
Online Social Networks.
Mr. Newman has represented several actors over movie merchandising
rights including the character Scut Farkus from the 1983 move A Christmas Story
and Chotchkie’s Waiter from the 1998 movie Office Space. Mr. Newman has been
involved in copyright disputes over movie scripts and photographs as well as
numerous consumer class action cases against companies such as Apple, Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation and StubHub.

4

EXHIBIT A
Page 14

EXHIBIT B
Attorney
Randall S. Newman

Hours Worked Hourly Rate
928.3
$640

Lodestar
$594,112

EXHIBIT B
Page 15

EXHIBIT C
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
56.50
$640

Lodestar
$36,160

EXHIBIT C
Page 16

EXHIBIT D
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
101.1
$640

Lodestar
$64,704

EXHIBIT D
Page 17

EXHIBIT E
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
435.60
$640

Lodestar
$278,784.00

EXHIBIT E
Page 18

EXHIBIT F
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
337.8
$640

Lodestar
$216,192

EXHIBIT F
Page 19

EXHIBIT G
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
142
$640

Lodestar
$90,880

EXHIBIT G
Page 20

EXHIBIT H
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
106.40
$640

Lodestar
$68,096

EXHIBIT H
Page 21

EXHIBIT I
Attorney
RANDALL S. NEWMAN

Hours
Hourly Rate
Worked
85.3
$640

Lodestar
$54,592

EXHIBIT I
Page 22

EXHIBIT J
Date
10/5/13
10/31/13
9/15/14
10/29/14
3/21/15
7/28/15
11/30/15
2/28/16

Location
Los Angeles, CA
Louisville, KY
Washington, DC
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Los Angeles, CA

Purpose
Motion to Dismiss
Historical Research
Meeting with consultant
Meeting of Counsel Re: Joint SJ
Summary Judgment Hearing
Summary Judgment Hearing (resumed)
Mediation
Preliminary Approval Hearing

EXHIBIT J
Page 23