3 16 07 Doc 56 641 Mirch Beesley and SBN's Supplement to Response to Order Re Fees

7/29/2019 3 16 07 Doc 56 641 Mirch Beesley and SBN's Supplement to Response to Order Re Fees

1/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Margo Piscevich, NV Bar No. 0917Mark J. Lenz, Esq., NV Bar No. 4672Piscevich & Fenner499 West Plumb Lane, Suite 201Reno, Nevada 89509Tel: (775) 329-0958Fax: (775) 329-2666Attorneys forDEFENDANTS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

KEVIN J.MIRCH,ESQ.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE BEESLEY,ROB BARE,BRIDGET ROBBPECK,DONALD CHRISTENSEN,STATE BAR OFNEVADA,DOES I-X,A-ZCORPORATIONS,

Defendants

Case No. 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM

Piscevich&

Fenner

499WestPlumbLane,Suite201

Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

Supplement to Response to Order re FeesDefendants Bruce Beesley, Bridget Robb Peck and Donald Christensen, by and through

their counsel of record, Piscevich & Fenner, submit their Supplement to their response to the

Courts Order regarding attorneys fees, dated January 9, 2007, in compliance with LR 54-16

and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 526 F.2d 67 (9th

Cir. 1975), as follows:

1. Itemization and description of work performed:

An itemization and description of the work performed is contained in the Billing

Statements attached hereto as Exhibit A. In short, the work consisted of:

1. Review and analysis of Mirchs 400-paragraph Amended Complaint;

- 1 -

Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 56 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 7


2/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Legal analysis of each of the elements of Mirchs [8] alleged claims for relief and

comparison with his asserted facts;

3. Consultations with clients regarding strategic decisions;

4. Outlining and drafting the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Beesley, Peck and

Christensen;1

5. Legal analysis of Mirchs requests for extension and supporting documentation,

along with briefing relating to Mirchs Petition for a Writ of Mandamus before the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals regarding his requested extensions;

6. Legal analysis of Mirchs Opposition to the Motion(s) to Dismiss, and draft

Reply;

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

7. Briefing on Motion for Sanctions, including review of Mirchs Opposition and

drafting the Reply;

8. Briefing and hearing on Mirchs Motion for Stay.

2. Itemization of costs charged:

The costs charged are itemized and set forth on the Bill of Costs, attached hereto as

Exhibit B.

3. Summary of the Case

A. Nature of the Case

On November 23, 2005, Plaintiff Kevin Mirch (Mirch) filed a complaint in this Court

for the purpose of forestalling a disciplinary proceeding pending against him before the State

Bar. On March 23, 2006, 120 days later, Mirch filed a First Amended Complaint and served it

on Defendants. Defendants asserted that Mirchs First Amended Complaint was a prime

1 Drafting of the Motion to Dismiss for Mr Bare and the State Bar was initially commenced by BarCounsels office. None of their time is reflected in the Piscevich and Fenner billings.

- 2 -



3/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

example of vexatious and inappropriate litigation, comprising sixty (60) pages and four hundred

(400) paragraphs of repetitive, accusatory, defamatory, largely unintelligible allegations against a

panoply of judges, mediators, attorneys and State Bar officials, all of whom were accused of

conspiring against Mirch to destroy his law practice and reputation. His allegations spanned a

period of twenty (20) years or more, and ranged from nefarious political skullduggery, to

terrorism (bombing of his office), to theft and fraud, to intent to cause Mirch mental harm.

The State Bar complaint against Mirch arose out of a First Amended Complaint he filed

in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, styled Kevin J. Mirch, Doe

Plaintiffs A-Z v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, LLP, Leigh Goddard, Esq., and Doe Attorneys 1-

10., case no. CV02-05644. On October 9, 2003, District Judge James Hardesty entered an Order

Dismissing Mirchs lawsuit, imposing sanctions pursuant to NRCP 11, and referring the matter

to the State Bar for disciplinary investigation. .

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

Mirchs current First Amended Complaint mirrored the First Amended Complaint that

was the subject of Judge Hardestys Order. His First Amended Complaint appeared to be

nothing more than an attack by Mirch on the underlying discipline complaint. The framework of

his attack comprised five Claims for Relief beginning at Paragraph 260 and continuing through

Paragraph 400. The Five Claims were: (1) Combination and Conspiracy in Violation of Section

1 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act; (2) Constitutional Violation [of] Due

Process; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Tortuous ( sic)

Interference with Business; and (5) Injunctive Relief.

B. Difficulty of the Case

The difficulty of the case was first manifested in the First Amended Complaint itself, and

what may be termed the Mirch Factor. The First Amended Complaint was convoluted,

rambling, unintelligible in large part, and extremely difficult to comprehend. Its 400 paragraphs

- 3 -



4/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recited a sort of 20-year history of Mirchs perceived conspiracies by various attorneys, judges,

the State Bar and the Nevada Supreme Court. In addition, the purported federal question claims

were difficult to analyze because the alleged factual predicates were spread over 400 paragraphs.

C. The result obtained and the amount involved

Defendants were successful in obtaining a dismissal of Mirchs First Amended

Complaint. Given that his demand was in excess of $75 Million, [First Amended Complaint,

283] the result obtained was favorable.

D. Time and labor required

The Billing Statements attached as Exhibit A reflect approximately 125 hours of legal

work required from the commencement of the litigation through the order dismissing the First

Amended Complaint. The labor involved was quite intensive, necessitating extensive legal

research into the federal question claims, and extensive factual analysis resulting from the

convoluted nature of Mirchs pleadings. The file itself comprises four separate folders. As

noted in counsels Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit C,the bill was evenly divided

between the State Bar, including Rob Bare, and the other Defendants. The work, however, was

necessary for both sets of Defendants.

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

E. Novelty and difficulty of questions involved

Because of the Mirch Factor, refuting his allegations and arguments was necessarily

novel and difficult. The Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the Individual Defendants comprised 23

pages of legal and factual analysis and argument. The combined federal question and state law

claims needed to be addressed separately. The federal questions required analysis of subject

matter jurisdiction under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Younger abstention doctrine and

Eleventh Amendment immunity, along with an analysis of qualified immunity. The State law

- 4 -



5/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims required analysis of civil conspiracy claims, bad faith and injunctive relief, all of which

were made doubly difficult by the convoluted nature of the Complaint.

F. Skill requisite to perform legal service properly

As noted, analysis of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, Younger abstention issues, the

Eleventh Amendment and the pendant state law claims required a good deal of skill. Organizing

the analyses into a coherent, logical presentation was made difficult by the nature of Mirchs

pleadings, but it was accomplished.

G. Preclusion of other employment by attorney due to

acceptance of case

Counsel is not aware of other employment that was precluded by accepting this case.

Counsels workload increased significantly, however, as a result.

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

H. Customary Fee

Customary business litigation fees in this community range from $200 per hour to well

over $350 per hour. However, the fee charged in this matter was $160 per hour, well below the

customary fee for similar services. In addition, Defendants seek only half the billed fees,

making an effective rate of $80 per hour.

I. Whether Fee is fixed or contingent

Counsels fee was a fixed hourly rate. As noted, the fee was also split, so these

Defendants were paying only half of the billed fees.

J. Time limitations imposed by client or circumstancesNo time limitations are applicable here.

K. Experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys

Piscevich & Fenner has been a premier insurance defense firm in Northern Nevada for

over 20 years. Margo Piscevich has over 35 years experience in litigation, has served on

- 5 -



6/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

numerous State Bar and ABA committees, as well as being President of the State Bar of Nevada.

Mark J. Lenz has 15 years experience in litigation, and serves on the State Bar CLE Programs

Committee. The reputation and ability of Defendants counsel is undisputedly high-level.

L. Undesirability of the case, if any

Although the case was difficult, it was not particularly undesirable, except for having to

deal with Mirchs writing style.

M. Nature and length of professional relationship with the

client

No previous attorney-client relationship existed.

N Awards in similar cases

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

Mr. Mirch has had sanctions awarded against him in several prior cases, including the

Second Judicial District Court case noted above.

4. Other information for the Court

Defendants seek a monetary sanction in the amount of $9,303.75 in fees, and $240.19 in

recoverable costs, as set forth in the Bill of Costs filed January 19, 2007 (Exhibit B.).

Dated this 16th day of March, 2007.

PISCEVICH &FENNER

By: /s/__________________________Mark J. Lenz, Esq.

499 West Plumb Lane, Suite 201Reno, NV 89509Attorneys for Defendants

- 6 -



7/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of PISCEVICH &

FENNER and that on this date I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the document

described herein by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:

Document Served: SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO

ORDER RE: FEES

Person(s) Served:

Kevin J. Mirch329 Flint StreetReno, NV 89501

__________ Hand Deliver____XX____ U.S. Mail__________ Overnight Mail__________ Facsimile

[number]

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

DATED this 16th day of March, 2007.

______________________________TERESA BORJON

- 7 -



8/24

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 56-2 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 10


9/24


Piscevich Fenner499 West Plumb Lane

Sui te 20 1Reno, Nevada 89509775-329-0958

TIN: 88-0175670

State Bar of Nevada600 East Charleston BoulevarldLas Vegas, Nevada 89 104

Attenti on: Wayne Blev ins. Executive Direc

RE: Re: Sta te Bar of Nevada ad s. MirchMy File No .: 60 -4446DATE DE SC RIPTIONApr-05-06 Telepho ne ca ll from Mr. Nezwek re: case.

Telephone ca ll with Mr. Beesley re: service.Re view complaint guidelines.Send email to Mr. Nezwek re: initialimpressions budget.Fact InvestigationIDeveloprnent - review K.Mirch Complaint; receive and review draftMotion to Di smiss from State memo 10MP re motions [ d ism iss.

Apr-06-06 Pleadings - draft St ip and Order for Extensionof time to respond to ComplaintPleadings - review and revise draft Mot ion toDi smiss.

Apr-07-06 Draft letter to Mirch Mi rch re: Stipulationand Order for Extension of Time.

Apr-lO-06 Faci InvestigationlDevelopment - telephoneconference with B. Peck re ca se status andstrategy.

Apr l 1-06 Fact InvestigationlDeve lop ment - receive andreview draft Motion 10 Di smiss re Indiv idualDe fe ndants; commence review and revision ofMolionPl ead ings - receive and rev iew signedStipulation and Order re Extension; e-fi leStiplation and Order for j udges s ignature.Pleadings - receive and review Order reExtension ; e mail correspondence to clients restipulation and Order for ex tens ion.

HOURS

0.200.201.000 .1 01.50

0.502.000.40

0.501.00

0.50

0.50

Fi le :lnv :

AMO UNT

32.0032.00

160.0016. 00

240.00

87.50320 .00

32.00

80.00160.00

80.00

80.00

Sep 30, 2006

60 444610865

LAWYERMPMPMPMPM

MLMLYLMLML

ML

M


10/24


Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 0.50 80.00 MLdraft Notice ofAppearance and e-file Notice.

Apr-12-06 Reveiw letter from Ms. Mirch agreeing to 0.10 16 .00 MPextension.Disposit ive Motions - legal analysis and 4.50 720.00 MLcomplete draft Motian ta Di smiss. review andrevise Motion to Dismiss.

Apr-J3-06 Fact InvestigationlDevelopment - telephone 0.30 48.00 MLconference with B La'mit re Mirch casestatus.Fact InvesligationlDevelopmcnt - receive and 1.00 160.00 MLreview State Bar Complaint and 2nd JudiciaOrder for exh ibits to Motion to DismissBudgeting- conUllence preparation of tentative 1.00 160.00 MLlitigation budget

Apr-14 -06 Fact InvestigatianIDevelopment - email to E 0. 10 16.00 MLBorrowman re affidavit.Apr-18-06 Dispositive Motions - con tinued review and 1.00 160.00 ML

revise Motion to Dismiss.Apr- 19-06 Di spositive Motions - review and revise 4.00 640.00 MLdispositive Motions; proof and revise to finalfonn; review and prepare exhibits to motions;arrange for e-filing and service.Other WRitten Motions and Submissions 3.50 560.00 MLlegal analysis and commence draft Motion forSanctions.Apr-20-06 Other WRi11en Motions and Submissions- 3.50 560.00 MLcontinued legal analysis and complete draftMotion for Sanctions.

Apr-22-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 1.00 160.00 MLreview and revise Draft Malian for SanctionsApr-25-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 0.30 48.00 MLproof and revise to final form Motion for

Sanctions; correspondence to K Mirch reMotion.May-07-06 Review letter from Ms. Witty re: extension. 0.10 16.00 MPDictate fax to Ms. Witty granting a 30 day 0.30 48.00 MPnot a 60 day extension.

May-08-06 Telephone call from Mr. Coulter re: Mirch's 0.30 48.00 MPactivities.Review fax [Tom Mr. Coulter. 0.10 16.00 MPOther WRitten Motions and Submissions - 2.50 400.00 MLreceive and review Mirch's Motion forEnlargement ofTirne to Op po se Motions toDismiss; legal analysis and commence draftOppositionMay-09-06 Fact InvestigationlDevelopment - receive and 0.10 16.00 MLreview correspondence fr0111 L Hart reDeclaration


11/24


Fact Investigation/Development - receive and 0.10 16.00 MLreview correspondence from B Bees ley reDeclaration.Analysis/Strategy - legal analysis re Mirch 1.50 240.00 MLrequests for enlargment of timeOther WRitten Motions and Submissions 0.60 96.00 MLreview and revi se Opposition to Motion forEnl argement of TimeOther WRitten Motions and Submissions 0.50 80.00 MLdraft Declarration for L Hart re Opposition toMotion for EnlargementOther WRitten Motions and Submissions - 0.40 64.00 MLdraft Declaration of B Beesley re Oppositionto Motion for EnlargmentOther WRitten Motions and Submissions - 0.40 64.00 Mdraft Declaration of C Coulter re Oppositionto Motion for EnlargmentFact investigation/development: courthouse 1.70 136.00 DSsearch re prior Mirch cases, prior requests forenlargement , extens ions. in IGT-Siena case;locate case files at courthouse in JudgePolaha s Department; meet with Ms. Ulleheitre re searching case files. copying documents.

May-I 0 06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 0.50 80.00 MLcontinued legal ana lysis for Opposition toMotion fo r Enlargment ofTimeOther WRi tten Motions and Submissions - 1.50 240 .00 Mcontinued legal analysis and review of exhibitsfor Opposition to motion to enlarge timeCourthouse research re Mirch, files in IGTv. 6.70 536.00 DSSiena.

May-I 1-06 Fact Investigat ion/ Development - legal 0.50 80.00 MLanalysis and draft correspondence to K Mirchrc request for extension.Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 1.00 160.00 Mcontinu ed review and preparation of exhibitsfo r Opposition to Motion for enlargement oftimeOther WRitten Motions and Submissions - 3.50 560.00 MLcontinued draft Opposition to Motion forenl argement of time

May-I 206 Pick up copies of documents in Mirch case at 1.30 104.00 DSWashoe County Courthouse; reviewdocuments and put in chronological order,separate orders and motions, affidavits.May-13 -06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 3.00 480.00 MLreview and revise draft Opposition to Mo tionfor Enlargement ofTime.May-I 506 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions 2.50 400 .00 Mproof and revise to final form Opposiiton toMotion for Enlargement of Time; review andprepare exhibi ts for motion; arrange fore-filing and service.


12/24


May-I 8-06 Analysis/Strategy - telephone conference with 0.50 80.00 MLBob Eisenberg re Oppos ition to Motion toEnlarge Time; rev iew Motion from LGoddard re MirchMay-19-06 Fact Inves tigation/ Development - receive and 0.50 80.00 MLrev iew Order denying Mirch motion forextension of time; email Order to B. Beesley,B Peck, D. ChristensenOther WRirten Motions and Submissions - 2.50 400.00 MLprepare Motion for Sanctions for e-filing;review and prepare exhibits fo r e-filing.May-24-06 Fact Investigation Deve opment - receive and 0.50 80.00 Mreview Mirch's Petition for Wr it of Mandamusre Order denying motion for extension.May-25-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 4.00 640.00 MLlegal analysis and draft Opposition to Requestfor Extension re MO lion for Sanctions.Other WRitlen Motions and Submissions 0.30 48.00 Mreceive and review Motion for Enlargement ofTi me re Opp to Mot ion for Sanctions.May-26-06 Fact Investigat ionlDevelopment - telephone 0.20 32.00 MLconference wi th Motion clerk at 9th Cir reWrit Peti tion and no stipulation.JUI1-01-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions 1.00 160 .00 MLprepare and file Notice of No n-Compliance reOrder to fi le Opposit ions to Motions toDismiss; arrange fo r service.JUI1-02-06 Fact Invcsti gat ionIDcvelopmcnt review Pacer 0.5 0 80.00 MLand 9th Circuit information re stay order onOppositions.JUI1-19-06 Fact Investigation/ Development Receive and 0.10 16.00 MLreview Order to respond to w ri t petition.

JUI1-20-06 Fact InvestigationIDevelopment - receive and 1.00 160.00 MLreview Order from 9th Cir. re response to WritPetition; conference with clients re response;receive and review transcript of phonemessage from K. Mirch to R. Bare re hearing.

JU -21-06 Fact Invest igationIDcvelopmcnt. legal 5.50 880 .00 Manalysis for Response 10 Wr it Peti tion;commence draft Response .JUI1-23-06 ApcUate Briefs con tinued legal analysis l e 7.0 0 1,120.00 MLBauman factors for granting writ petition;outline of argument for Response to Petitionfor Wril of Mandamus; complete draftResponse to Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Jun2406 Other WRi tten Mo tions and Submissions 4.50 720.00 MLlegal ana lysis and draft Motion to QuashSubpoena and Declaration in Support.

JU -26-06 ApeHate Motions and Submissions Review 2.00 320 .00 MLand revise Response to Petition for Writ ofMandamus; arrange for filing and service.

JU -27-06 Proof and revise to Final Form Marion to 4.00 0.00 MLQuash Subpoena Duces Tecum ond Not ice of


13/24


Taking Depost ion of Rob Bare; proof andrevise Declarations; prepare exhibits andarrange for filing and service.1un-28-06 Court Mandated Conferences - prepare for and 0.80 128.00 MLattend telephonic conference re Mirch mo tionfor ex tension.Jul-03-06 ApeUate Bri efs - rece ive and review Mirch s 0.50 80.00 MLReply Briefre writ petition.Jul-04-06 Fact InvestigalionIDevelopment - receive and 1.00 160.00 MLreview Mirch s Reply in support of petition forWr it of Mandamus; email to clients re Reply.Jul-05-06 Telephone conference with D. Clark re Bare 0.50 0.00 MLdeposition; telephone conference with Court reorder on ex parte motion to quash; te lephoneconferrence wi th K. Mirch re deposition andmotion to quash.Jul -1 9-06 Fact Investigat ion/Development - recieve and 0.30 48.00 MLreview correespondence from M. Mirch rehealth recordsAug-02-06 Fact Investigat ionlDevelopment - receive and 0.50 80 .00 MLreview medical records of K. Mirch.

Aug-05-06 Fact Investigat ion/Development - receive and 0.50 80.00 MLreview Mirch s Opposition to Motoin forSanctions.Aug-09-06 Fact Investiga tion/Development - receive and 0.20 32.00 MLreview Order re extension of time to Opposemotion fo r sanctions.Aug- 10-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 4.00 640.00 MLlegal analysis and commence draft Reply inSupport of Motion fo r SanctionsAug-12-06 Other WRitten Mot ions and Submissions - 3.00 480 .00 Mcont inued legal analysis and complete draftReply in Support of Motion for Sanctions;email to counsel for review.Aug-I 7-06 Fact Investigation/Development - email 10 0.20 32 .00 MLclients re Order on Writ Petition from 9thC ircuit.Sep-07-06 Fact Investigation/ Development - receive and 0.50 80.00 MLreview Mirch s Motion for Stay; email toclients re motion.Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 1.00 160.00 MLlegal ana lysis and draft Opposition to motionfor stay.Se p- 10-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions - 2.00 320.00 MLcontinued lega l analys is and review and revisedraft Opposition to Motion for Stay; email tocounsel ror review.Sep II 06 Other WRitten Molions and Submissions 1.00 160.00 MLproof and revise to final form Opposition toMotion for Stay; arrange for fi ling and service;telephone conrerence with Judge McQuaid soffice re hearing on mot io n.


14/24


Sep-12-06 Fact InvestigationIDevel opment receive andreview Order re heari ng on Motion for Stay;email to clients re hearing and opposition tomotionSep-19-06 Review fil e pleadings.Atte nd hearing via te lephone re:motion tostaySend email to clients re: outcome of hearing.

Totals

FEE SUM MARY:Lawyer Hours Effectiv RateMargo Piscevich

Mark Lenz

Legal Assistant

Legal Assista nt

DIS URSEMENTS

Apr-07-06 Photocopy ExpenseApr 19 06 Photocopy Expense

Postage ExpenseAp r 25 06 Facsimile Expense

Photocopy ExpensePostage Expense

May 08 06 Facsimile ExpenseMay- l 1-06 Facsimile Expense

Facsimile Expense

3.20

96.40

9.70

O O

May 12 06 Washo County Clerk/copies/Mirch fiIMay-18-06 MPfReimb.Copies

160.00

152.61

80.00

80.00

May 25 06 Reno Carson Messenger ServicelDeliverySe rviceJun OJ 06 Photocopy Expense

0.50 80.00

0.30 48.000.40 64.000.10 16.00

109.70 16 ,031.50

Amount512.00

14,711.50

776.00

32.00

Di sbursements0 75

17.004.050.702.750.87l.754.201.05

57.0050.0012.000.75

ML

MPMPMP

Receipts


15/24


Jun-26-06

Jun-27-06Jul-08-06Aug-14-06

Sep- I I-06

Facsimile ExpensePhotocopy ExpensePo stage ExpensePhotocopy Expen seUPS Next Day AirPhotocopy ExpensePostage ExpensePhotocopy Expen sePostage Expense

Totals

Total Fees Di sbursements

evious alancePrev ious Payments

Balance Due NowAMOUNT QUOTED:

7.7036.752.22

17 0013.627_ . _

0.631.500.63

$235.17 SO OO

S ,266.67$0.00$0.00

$16 ,266.67so oo


16/24

Case 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM Document 56-2 Filed 03/16/07 Page 9 of 10Piscevich Fenner

State Barof Nevada600 East Charleston BoulevarldLas Vegas, Nevada 89104

499 West Plumb LaneSuite 201Reno, Nevada 89509775-329-0958

T N : 88-0175670

Attention: Wa yne Bl ev ins, Executive Di recRE: Re: State Bar of Nevada ads. Mirc hMy File No.: 60-4446DATE DESCRlPTION

OCI-1 3-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions -conti nued legal analysis and commence draftReply in Support of Motions to Di smissOC I-1 8-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissionscont inued legal analysis and draft of Reply inSupport ofMotion to DismissOct-19-06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissionsconti nued legal analysis and complete draftReply in jSupport of Motions to Di smiss;Review and revise draft Reply; prepare Tab lesof Authorities and Contents; email to counselfor rev iew.

OCI-23 -06 Other WRitten Motions and Submissions-proof nd revise lO final form Reply in Supportof Motions lO Di smiss; arrange for e-filing ndservice.Jan-03-07 Review lener from Mr. Bare.

Totals

FEE SUMMARY:Lawyer Hou rs Effect ive RateMargo Piscevich 0.10 $160.00

File :In v :

HOURS AMOUNT

3.00 480.00

4.50 720.00

7.50 1,200.00

1.00 160.00

0. 10 16.00

16.10 $2,576.00

Am ount$ 16. 00

Jan 122007

60-4446Sample

LAWYER

ML

ML

ML

ML

MP


17/24


18/24

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B



19/24


~ A O I (Rev.9f89) Bill O(Costs

UNITED STATES D ISTRlCT COURT

Kevin J . Mirch, Esq .V.

Dislrict of Nevada

BIL L OF C OSTSBruce Beesley RDb Bare , Bridget Case Number: 3 : 05-cv- 0064l-RIR- RA.1>.1Ibbb Peck, [bnald Christ ensen , State Baro f Nevaaa, OES x, A- Z COIp ratl ons ,

Judgment having been entered in the above enti tled action on 1 9 07 against Kevin J . Mir ch, plaint . if fthe Clerk is requested to ta;>; the following as co sts:Fees of the J ~ r k S n/aFees for service of summons and subpoe na n/aFees oflhe court repOrter for all or any part of the transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case n/aFees and disbursements [or printing . . . . . n/aFees [or witnesses (i temize on reverse side) . . . . . . . . . . n/aFees for e;>;emplification and copies of papers necessarily ob tained for use in the case 196 . 2iDocket fees under 28 U.S.C. 1923 n/aCosts as shown on Mandatc of Couri o f Appeals n/aCompensation of co urt-appointed uperts n/aCompensation of interpreters and cos ts of special interpretation senices under 28 U S.C. 1828 n/aOh I Postage SlO . 62 i .F. .cs.lJ1tl.. .1.e. . .7 7.D. ..De. . .i.v.eryt er cOStS p ease Itemize service 25 62 43.94

TOTAL S 24 0lQSPECIAL NOTE: Attach to your bi ll an ite mi zation and documentation for reques ted cOSts in all ca tegories.

DECLARA TIONJdeclare under pena lty of perjury that the foregoing costs are conect and were necessarily incurred in th is action and that the serv ices

for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. A copy of (his bi11lVas mailed today with postageprepaid to: Kevin J . Mirch , Esq . .

S;,,,, ,,o'A ,, o,,Name of Atlomey: t ark J _ Lenz, Esq_

For: Defendants Dale: January 16, 2007Name ofCl3imi ng PaRY

COSIS are tued in the amoun t of _ _ ______________________ and included in the judgment.By:

Cltrk of Coun D


20/24


W IT NESS FEES (Colll IJu tatiOIl , d . 28 U.S.C. 82 for statutory feu)ATI ENDANCE SUBSISTENCE MILEAGE Total Co.tNAM E AND RESIDENCE Total TOtal Tot,l Each Will1es.s"'' ' Cm' Do CM' Miles Cost

TOTAL

NO TI CESectio n 192 4 , Title 28, U.S. Code (e rrec ti ve Sl' IJt ember I, 1948) IJr ovides:'Sec. 1924. Ver ification of bill of cos ts.

Before any bill of costs is taxed. the party cla imi ng any item of cost or di sbu rsement shall a1l3ch thereto an am davit.made by himself or by hi s duly autborilcd allorney or agcnt having knowledge o f th e fac ts, that such item is correct andbas been neces sarily incurred ill the casc and that tbc services for whicb fees bave been cbarged were actually andneces sarily performed.Sec a lso Sec t ion 1920 ofTitlc 28, which rc'l ds in part 5 follows:

" A bill of cos tS shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or d ccrec."Th e Fed er a l R ules o h'il l' roced ure contain the following p r ovisions:Ru le 54 (d)

Excep t when express provis ioll therefor is made either in a statute o f the United Sta tes or in these rules, costs shallbe allowed as of cou rse to the prcvailing party unless Ihe court otherwise directs, hut costs agains t the United States, itsofficers, and agencies shall be imposed on ly to the extent pcrm itted by law . Co sts may be axcd by the clerk on one day' snotice. On motion served witbin 5 days thcre:lfter. the :Iction or the clerk may be reviewed by tbe court . 'Ru le 6(e)

Whenever 3. party ha s th e right or is required to do some act or tak e som e procee dings within a prescribcd periodafter the serv ice ofa notice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon hi m by lIIail. 3 da} 5 shal l beadded 10 the prescribed period.Rul e 58 ( In Part)

"'Entry o f the judgment lot be dela yed for the mxing OfcoSt8."'


21/24

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C



22/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Margo Piscevich, NV Bar No. 0917Mark J. Lenz, Esq., NV Bar No. 4672Piscevich & Fenner499 West Plumb Lane, Suite 201Reno, Nevada 89509Tel: (775) 329-0958Fax: (775) 329-2666

Attorneys forDEFENDANTS

U.S. DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA

KEVIN J.MIRCH,ESQ.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE BEESLEY,ROB BARE,BRIDGET ROBBPECK,DONALD CHRISTENSEN,STATE BAR OFNEVADA,DOES I-X,A-ZCORPORATIONS,

Defendants

Case No. 3:05-cv-00641-RLH-RAM

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

DECLARATION

STATE OF NEVADA ))ss:

COUNTY OF WASHOE )

I, Mark J. Lenz, declare in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746 that the following

statements are true, and that:

1. I am associated with Piscevich & Fenner, counsel of record for Defendants in the

above-referenced action.

2. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to

testify as to the matters stated herein, could do so competently.

- 1 -



23/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. I was the attorney primarily responsible for preparing, reviewing and finalizing

the Motions to Dismiss and subsequent related briefing in this matter. The information in

Defendants Supplement to Response to Order re: Fees filed herewith is, to the best of my

knowledge, complete and accurate.

4. The costs set forth in Defendants Bill of Costs reflect the amounts usually

charged for the items indicated. Piscevich & Fenner does not charge separately for computer

legal research, and no charge is included for it.

5. The firms billings reflect a total of 115.7 hours of attorney time, and 10.1 hours

of legal assistant time expended on this matter through October 23, 2006.

6. The hourly rate for the firm for similar services is $160 for attorney time, and $80

for legal assistant time, which multiplied by the hours expended would total $18,512 for attorney

time and $808 for legal assistant time, or $19,320. However, our billing program makes some

adjustments, resulting in a total bill for fees of $18,607.50.

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958

7. I have reviewed and edited the billing statements in this case. I know, for

example, that the billing program responds to a task code of 250 with an automatic phrase

Other WRitten Motions and Submissions with an improperly capitalized R in Written. I

had not, at that point, changed the automatic phrase feature to make a correction.

8. Normally, a pair of Motions to Dismiss would not have required as much as 125

hours of work to brief to completion. However, Plaintiff in this case also filed motions for

enlargement of time, a motion for stay, and attempted an interlocutory petition for a Writ of

Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately proved moot. The hours

spent dealing with the briefing at the Ninth Circuit are included in our billings, as they were

directly related to the Motions to Dismiss.

- 2 -



24/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. The fees and costs charged are reasonable. In this matter, we represented all

Defendants. However, we agreed to represent the State Bar and Mr. Bare on a separate account.

Accordingly, the fees expended on behalf of Beesley, Peck and Christensen are deemed to be

one-half of the amount billed, or $9,303.75.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2007.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/____________________________

Mark J. Lenz, Esq.

Piscevich&

Fenner


Reno,NV

89509

775.329.0958


Documents

3 16 07 Doc 56 641 Mirch Beesley and SBN's Supplement to Response to Order Re Fees