Defendants Opposition of Attorney fees.

Afsaneh Mobasser, 
C/O Alex Noveen
221 South Elm Dr.
Beverly Hills,Ca. 90212 

Defendant, Afsaneh Mobasser In Pro se


SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – WEST DISTRICT, BEVERLY HILLS 


WOLF & ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff,

vs.


AFSANEH MOBASSER in Pro se
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 12U00223

DEPT.:      6
JUDGE:    Hon. Leslie E. Brown
Defendant’s 
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES.









Date Action Filed:  03/14/2013





Defendant objects to the motion for attorney fees for the following reasons:
In this case: Unlawful Detainer :Wolf vs. Mobasser, 

JUDGMENT ENTERED AS A FINAL DISPOSITION :
(01/14/2013 CLERK'S NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT & NOTICE RE: EXHIBITS/
DEPOSITION ISSUED. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED

Plaintiff Attorney: : 02/15/2013  NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COURT COSTS; ,
Plaintiff Attorney’s Motion is untimely. Motion should have been filed on later than 
02/13/2013

  California Rules of Court Rule 3.1702(b)(1) provides that a notice of motion for attorney fees "must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal . . . under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case." There is a limited exception if the parties stipulate to an extension and that obviously doesn't apply here.     In summary, California Rules of Court Rule 8.822(a)(1) provides that a notice of appeal in a limited civil case (which this is) must be filed on or before the earliest of (A) 30 days after the trial court clerk mails notice of entry of judgment, (B) 30 days after a notice of entry of judgment is served by one of the parties on the other, or (C) 90 days after entry of judgment.     Finally, unlike other kinds of mailing, Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a) provides that completion of service by mail does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.       Therefore, the 30 day clock on filing the notice of appeal and therefore the service and filing of a motion for attorney fees started running on January 14, 2013 when the clerk mailed the notice of entry of judgment and ended on February 13.  The motion was filed on February 15 and therefore was untimely.     Nothing in the law gives the court discretion to extend the time within which the motion must be filed.





FURTHER: REGARDING THE REQUESTED SUM OF $of $44,292.50. 
This is outrageous and absurd. This case is neither complex nor unique and viewing the
Resume of experience and accomplishments submitted by the Plaintiff’s Attorney of THE FOUR Attorneys, one would think this case could be accomplished with their eyes closed. Case was overstaffed. the four attorneys [Plaintiff] deployed on this case appear to have expended more time telephoning, conferencing, and e-mailing each other than on identifiable legal research for the case. Also the resumes included makes one wonder if this is to impress the court or the hunt for a job. This deployment of four attorneys and the staff equals a Samson and
Goliath scenario. 

Additionally it is important to note that in the Memorandum of costs submitted prior. This court awarded $1075.60 for the Video taped deposition of Deborah Daly who neither qualifies nor should be afforded such accommodation as she does not meet the necessary Criteria per the  Ca. Code noted below:
California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2025.620 Article 6 
 (1) The deponent resides more than 150 miles from the place of the
trial or other hearing.
   (2) The deponent, without the procurement or wrongdoing of the
proponent of the deposition for the purpose of preventing testimony
in open court, is any of the following:
   (A) Exempted or precluded on the ground of privilege from
testifying concerning the matter to which the deponent's testimony is
relevant.
   (B) Disqualified from testifying.
   (C) Dead or unable to attend or testify because of existing
physical or mental illness or infirmity.
   (D) Absent from the trial or other hearing and the court is unable
to compel the deponent's attendance by its process.
   (E) Absent from the trial or other hearing and the proponent of
the deposition has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable
to procure the deponent's attendance by the court's process.
   (3) Exceptional circumstances exist that make it desirable to
allow the use of any deposition in the interests of justice and with
due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses.
Miss Daly lives five minutes from the Courthouse. Miss Daly testified that she thought she wouldn’t have to come to court if she gave a deposition. Miss Daly does not qualify for this accommodation. In the end she appeared in court. From the Transcript of Miss Daly. Questioner is Ed Sands:
Page 59
11:15:34 1 Q. All right. Did Mr. Brennan tell you that
11:15:39 2 if you gave this deposition, that would be in lieu
11:15:43 3 of you having to testify in court, and you would not
11:15:45 4 have to testify?
11:15:45 5 A. I don't know if he stated specifically, but
11:15:47 6 I assumed that taking my testimony this way would
11:15:51 7 defer me from testifying in court.
11:15:53 8 Q. This is an assumption you made? He never
11:15:56 9 said that?
11:15:56 10 A. I don't know if he said that explicitly.
11:15:58 11 Q. Well, implicitly, did he say that?
11:16:01 12 A. He said, "We need your testimony. This is
11:16:03 13 how we can get it."
11:16:04 14 Q. Right. But he didn't say anything, or did
11:16:07 15 he, about that -- if you do this, that you won't
11:16:09 16 have to be imposed upon to testify in court?
11:16:13 17 A. I don't know if he said it. I understood
11:16:15 18 that that was the -- that would be the result.
11:16:16 19 Q. In fact, if you are -- just to be clear
11:16:19 20 about this, if you are served with a subpoena to
11:16:24 21 testify in court in this case, you will do that?
11:16:29 22 A. Unless there's some legal reason for not
11:16:31 23 doing it, I will do it.
This deposition was unnecessary. Therefore all costs related to this deposition should not be charged to Defendant. Revisiting this unnecessary  cost once more in this motion for attorney fees is Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Brennen with redundancy in the first degree. Also Mr.Brennen assesses hours for Jury Preparation. Defendant wonders which jury he means since defendant was denied a jury trial. Nothing should be awarded for something that did not exist. And in the end Mr. Brennen assesses time for this motion which is future. Plaintiffs are not entitled to their attorney fees incurred in litigating their fee for this motion because they have not provided any evidence whatsoever to document those fees or establish their reasonableness by substantial evidence. 
.
 These attorney fees which are unconscionable, Obscene and excessive and beyond the decency of officers of the court have been untimely filed. 

Defendant Respectfully asks this court to deny this Motion for Attorney Fees. First due to the untimely filing. Second due to the excessiveness and unreasonableness. 


Dated : March 14, 2014           Respectfully submitted: Afsaneh Mobasser
                                                                                  Defendant In Pro Se

                                                     By: ………………………………................................




_______________________________











.