1

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES D:$;PARTMENT 76 S~NIA M. MERCADO

1

3
4

HON. ANTHONY ET AL'I PETITIONERS

1

B. DREWRY

COMM.

5
6 7

VS.

CASE NO. BSl18244

1

8
9

JOSE CASTANEDA

RESPONDENT. 10

11
12 13

REPORTER'S

TRANSCRIPT
1

OF PROCEEDINGS
131

MONDAY APPEARANCES: FDR PETITIONER:

APRIL

2009

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

LAW OFFICES OF R. SAMUEL BY: R. SAMUEL PAZ 5701 W SLAUSON AVE #202 CULVER CITY, CA 90230

PAZ

I FbR

RESPONDENT:

I I I I

JACK K. CONWAY ATTORNEY AT LAW 2460 HUNTINGTON DR S~l MARIN01 CA 91108

21
22

23
24

25 26 27 ~EPORTED BY: VALARIE T. GERBER OFFICIAL REPORTER

1

CSR 12819

1 l
2

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT REPORTER: TIME: APPEARANCES: 76 CALIFORNIA

BSl18244 MERCADO MONDAY, VS. CASTANEDA APRIL 13, 2009 B. DREWRY CSR 12819

3
4

COMM. ANTHONY VALARIE

5
6
7

T. GERBER,

9:15 A.M. (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

8
9

THE COURT: CHAMBERS

LET ME TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS I, WHICH IS MERCADO

IN

10

ON CASE NUMBER

VERSUS I'LL BE

11
12
13

CASTANEDA. RIGHT BACK.

THIS WILL TAKE ABOUT

FIVE MINUTES.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26

(DISCUSSION COUNSEL. )

IN CHAMBERS

BETWEEN

COURT AND

THE COURT: CALENDER,

ON THE RECORD.

NUMBER

1 ON THE

SONIA MERCADO,

ET AL. VERSUS

JOSE CASTANEDA. A

FOR THE RECORD, VERY BRIEF IN CHAMBERS

THE COURT JUST COMPLETED WITH COUNSEL,

CONFERENCE

AND IS NOW

READY TO PROCEED. COUNSEL, MR. PAZ: YES. YOUR HONOR. SAMUEL PAZ AND PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOUR APPEARANCES.

GOOD MORNING, APPEARING ASSOCIATES. PAZ. MR. CONWAY: ON BEHALF ROBERT

OF SONIA MERCADO,

SONIA MERCADO

BURKE AND LAW OFFICES

OF R. SAMUEL

27 28

GOOD MORNING,

YOUR HONOR.

JACK A.

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

'CONWAY

APPEARING

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

I JOSE

CASTANEDA. THE COURT: VERY WELL. MOTION FOR REASONABLE PARTY FIRST,

THIS IS PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY FEES.

LET ME HEAR FROM THE MOVING

I AND I I

THEN MR. CONWAY, MR. PAZ:

YOU MAY SIT DOWN IF YOU WISH TO.

I FEEL BETTER TO STAND UP. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TOTAL UP TO TO -- I'M SORRY, FEES AND AWARD AND

YES, YOUR HONOR.

I THE FEES WE'RE REQUESTING HERE I $46,264.92. THE COST TOTAL UP

I $1,922.15. A TOTAL REQUEST

OF ATTORNEY

I COST

IN THE AMOUNT

OF $48,227.07. SEEMS TO BE RATHER LARGE, BUT I

I
I WOULD

THAT AMOUNT

POINT OUT, YOUR HONOR, THAT ALL OF THIS -- ALL OF COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS BECAUSE MR. CASTANEDA HAD STOP THE

I THIS

NUMEROUS,

TO STOP HIS STALKING,

CONDUCT AND TO SEIZE AND DESIST. LETTERS. ONCE WE LEARNED ACCUSING

WE HAD TO SEND HIM INFORMATION HE

THE BLASPHEMOUS

HAD ON YOUTUBE

MS. MERCADO

AND MYSELF,

AND THE THAT, WE

I LAW

OFFICES

OF CONSTITUTED

FRAUDj ONCE WE LEARNED

THEN SENT LETTERS AND WE ASKED

TO GOOGLE AND TO YOUTUBE

AND GO CITIES "NO, YOU

THEM TO TAKE THEM OFF.

THEY SAID

HAVE TO GET A COURT ORDER FIRST." "TAKE THE STUFF OFF, MR. CASTANEDA,

WE WROTE MR. CASTANEDA, WE DON'T WANT TO GO TO OUR LISTING OF ATTORNEY WE DIDN'T

I COURT."

HE FORCED US TO DO THIS. RELATED

I FEES I WANT

IS DIRECTLY TO BE HERE.

TO HIS INTRANSIENT.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO ENGAGE

WITH THIS MAN

I AT ALL.

HE FORCED US TO DO THIS.

1 I AND I WOULD REQUEST, BEFORE THE COURT RULES 2 'ON THE MOTION, I'D ASK THE COURT TO RULE ON THE MOTION TO
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I STRIKE.

AND THE REASON

FOR THAT IS BECAUSE

ONCE THE COURT I THINK IS

I LOOKS
I YOU'LL
I

AT THE MOTION

TO STRIKE AND DETERMINES, OF MR. CONWAY

FIND ONE, THE DECLARATION

INCOMPETENT.

TWO, THAT IT CREATES NO ISSUE OF FACT. AND IF I MAY ADDRESS QUESTION WHICH THE COURT ON THE I DON'T THINK THE PAPERS DECLARATION

I SPECIFIC LEGALITY I DRAWS OUT. THIS

IS NOT -- MR. CONWAY'S

I ESSENTIALLY

ATTEMPTS

TO CREATE AN ISSUE OF FACT SAYING,

I "GEE, WE DIDN'T I FOR ATTORNEY'S I WE'RE I GO

AWAY."

KNOW THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FEES BECAUSE WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION.

NICE GUYS, WHY DON'T YOU BE A NICE GUY, MR. PAZ, AND WE FEEL THE ISSUE OF FACT THAT HE'S ATTEMPTING WITH THAT. AND

I TO CREATE, FIRST WE OBVIOUSLY WE DISAGREE I THAT'S IN MY DECLARATION INDICATING THAT

WE HAD A SPECIFIC

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

I DISCUSSIONTAKING ATTORNEY'S CONSIDER ABOUT THIS, AND

I
SECOND, MR. CASTANEDA

FEES OFF THE TABLE. TO EITHER I REFUSED DIRECTLY THAT IN

THE COURT WILL REMEMBER

I COURT,
I KNOW I CAN

STOOD NEXT TO MR. CONWAY AND SAID YOU "MR. CASTANEDA, EITHER WE

-- YOU ASKED HIM TWICE.

GO TO COURT, WE CAN GO TO TRIAL OR YOU CAN SIGN THE I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST LEFT, TOOK A RECESS, EITHER WAY," AND YOU AND THEN

I ORDER,

I ACTUALLY

CAME BACK OUT.

25 26 27 28

I AGREED WITH THIS, AGAIN, WE HAD THE I STIPULATION. I

DISCUSSION IN OPEN COURT, THE MR. CASTANEDA AGREED WITH MR. CONWAY

NOW, THE POINT THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT

TO US

1 2 3 4

I IS AS A MATTER

OF LAW, YOUR HONOR,

THEY HAVE AGREED

TO

I ATTORNEY'S

FEES.

AND I WOULD POINT THE COURT TO SOMETHING THE STIPULATION, EXHIBIT

I THAT

IS NOT IN THE PAPERS. 1 TO THE REPLY,

I NUMBER

SPECIFICALLY

STATES AT PAGE 2,

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I THE ORDERSTHROUGH 23. LINES 20 OF JANUARY

CONTINUED. CONTINUED. THE COURT: FEES. MR. PAZ: FIVE IN EXHIBIT

"THE 2009." AGREE CONTINUE 13TH, PLAINTIFFSPARAGRAPHTO NUMBER FIVE FEES WILL BE FEES WILL BE

IS AN ORDER THAT SAYS ATTORNEY'S

THE ORDER FOR ATTORNEYS

THE ISSUE FOR THE ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY

YES, YOUR HONOR. NUMBER 3.

AND THAT'S AT PARAGRAPH

AND THE ONLY THING THE STIPULATION ADD PARAGRAPH ON PARAGRAPH -- ESSENTIALLY 10 AND THAT'S 20 THROUGH

DID WAS TO ORDERS

WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL

SPECIFICALLY 23.

IN THE STIPULATION TO THE MERITS BECAUSE

AT PAGE 2, LINES

SO GETTING

THEN OF THE MOTION, YOU'VE INDICATED

AND I'LL BE BRIEF,

YOUR HONOR,

YOU READ IT. THAT THEY ARE THE EVERYTHING WE

FIRST, THERE'S NO QUESTION PREVAILING PARTY. ABSOLUTELY

NO QUESTION.

I ASKED

FOR IN THE ORIGINAL

PETITION

IS IN THE STIPULATION,

AND THE COURT'S

SIGNED ORDER. THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THE BEING

SECONDLY,

I REASONABLENESS
CHARGED, BEING CHARGED.

OF THE FEES, THE AMOUNT NO OBJECTIONS

THAT'S

AND THERE'S

TO THE RATES THAT ARE TO THE NUMBER BECAUSE OF

THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS

HOURS THAT ARE BEING CHARGED,

AND THAT'S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I MR. CONWAYHOW MUCH WORK IT TOOK TO AND MR. CASTANEDA KNOW THROUGH,
I COURT,

HOW MUCH ISSUE TO THE US GET THE GRIEF HE PUT ATTORNEY TO

AND WHY WE HAD TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AT TRIAL.

I AVOID

HE FORCED OUR HAND,

WE JUST DID WHAT WE HAD TO DO TO GET THIS ORDER. I'LL POINT TO THE COURT TO CALIFORNIA CAUSE VERSUS DUFFY AT 200 CAL. APP. 3D 730 AT 741. SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMON IT'S A CODE

1986 CASE, DEALING

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

IOF CIVIL THE AWARD, 526 -- BELIEVE AND ICASE STANDS FOR THE BELIEVE THAT ALTHOUGH PROCEDURE AND I 527.6. THAT PROPOSITION DISCRETIONARY DISCRETION THAT ALTHOUGH AN AWARD OF FEES MAY BE I BELIEVE IT'S AN ABUSE OF CAUSE CASE. IT

WITH THE COURT,

BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA DISCRETION

COMMON

WOULD BE AN ABUSIVE ATTORNEY'S FEES.

FOR THE COURT NOT TO AWARD IN

AND IN THAT CASE, THE COURT STATED

17 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I ATTORNEYS FEES THAT REGARD IT

I PLAINTIFF'S

BECAUSE BE -- PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SHOULD THERE WAS A RESOLUTION IN THE IN THAT CASE, THERE IN THAT

FAVOR BY A SETTLEMENT.

WAS A STIPULATION. CASE THE PLAINTIFF ESSENTIALLY

BUT THE COURT FOUND ABSOLUTELY WAS THE PREVAILING

PARTY, AND THAT

IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR THE COURT NOT TO AWARD

FEES IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. PAZ.

MR. CONWAY. MR. CONWAY: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. AS IF BY ADMITTED THAT

I I AGREEING

YOUR HONOR, MR. PAZ INDICATES TO THE STIPULATION, MR. CASTANEDA

1 2
3 4 5 6 7

I EVERYTHING INJUNCTIVE

THAT WAS SET FORTH IN STIPULATION WAS AN ATTEMPT ORDER WAS TRUE. THE THE REQUEST FOR THE AND I

I TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE MATTER BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT, I INDICATED TO MR. PAZ, I SAID "BY AGREEING TO THIS I STIPULATION, DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING?"
INDICATED TO MY CLIENT THAT THIS IS A SETTLEMENT ENTIRE ACTION.

AND I

OF THE

NOT ONCE DID MR. PAZ EVER SAY, "WELL, YOU

8 9

I ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THAT HAVE ARE GOING TO FEES SEEKING HAVE TO UNDERSTAND BE TOTALING, WE WE ATTORNEY'S I ACCORDING THAT BEEN
AGREED PREFERRED TO THE MR. CASTANEDA AND MYSELF DOLLARS." KNOWN, REQUEST, 48,000 SOME ODD WOULD NEVER HAD HAVE INTO THE STIPULATION. WE WOULD HAVE WE FELT

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO ENTER

TO HAVE GONE THROUGH

THE TRIAL BECAUSE

THAT THERE WERE SOME VERY GOOD DEFENSES ASSERTED. NOW, WHAT OCCURRED BELIEVE WAS APPARENTLY

WHICH COULD BE

IS VERY SIMPLY WHAT I AND I WOULD ASK

A MISUNDERSTANDING,

THAT THE MATTER THE SUPERIOR

-- WELL, AS A MATTER

OF FACT, LOOKING AT THIS OUT IN MY AND THE AND

COURT WEBSITE,

AND I POINTED

I OPPOSITION
WEBSITE

PAPERS,

THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED

STILL SHOWS THAT THIS ACTION

WAS DISMISSED.

THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING AND MR. PAZ NEVER CONTRARY.

THAT MR. CASTANEDA TO THE

AND I HAD,

INDICATED ANYTHING

THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING. WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. MY CLIENT

SO

THERE CLEARLY

AND BASED ON THAT WE

FACT, YOUR HONOR,

SHOULD NOT BE PREJUDICE.

HAVE TO THIS MATTER MATTER

RESET FOR TRIAL SO WE CAN HAVE THE

HEARD ON THE MERITS.

1 2 3 4 5

NOW, AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT

OF THE ATTORNEY \S

'FEES THAT ARE BEING SOUGHT, AS I POINT OUT IN OUR CHAMBERS

I CONFERENCE, I NOT EVEN ON

'BELIEVE

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE WEBSITE, CALENDAR, AND SO WE BELIEVED,

THIS MOTION WAS AND I CERTAINLY SET FOR

THAT THE MOTION WAS NOT ACTUALLY

6 7
8 9 10

I HEARING. IF WE LOOK THIS CASE, WE HAVE A

12009, THAT WAS BEFORE BEFORE

AT THE ACTIVITY THAT ON JANUARY DONE IN HAS BEEN TRO THAT WAS ISSUED 13TH, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE AS THE 4TH, THE TRO

I ATTORNEY

I WAS RETAINED.

ON FEBRUARY

'WAS DISMISSED

BEFORE

EVID BY BOTH SIDED.

11 12

I THE

RATHER

I'VE NOT REALLY HERE, OPPORTUNITY TO TWO EXTENSIVE BILLING HAD AN BUT $48,000 FOR GO INTO

14 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I APPEARANCES OUTRAGEOUS.
I MOTION,
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE ASKED FOR.

IN COURT THE COURT FEELS INCLINED TO GRANT THIS AND IF AND A PETITION, IS ABSOLUTELY TO SUBMIT SOME TO

THEN I WOULD ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S

AND EVIDENCE

FEES, WHICH ARE BEING

BUT THE KEY ISSUE, AND THE OVERWRITING IS THAT THIS STIPULATION

ISSUE

WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ENTERED THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE

INTO IF WE HAD KNOWN OR THOUGHT

I FORM

OF A SETTLEMENT,

AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FURTHER

I ACTIVITY.
I PARTICULAR

AND THE CASE WHICH MR. PAZ SITES, AND IN THAT CASE, NO ONE EVER CONTENDED THAT THE DEFENDANTS

OR THE RESPONDENT FOR ATTORNEY'S RAISED

IN THAT CASE WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WAS NEVER

FEES.

ON APPEAL. AND ON THAT BASIS, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

'THAT THIS MOTION

BE DENIED,

THAT THE MATTER

BE SET FOR TO

I TRIAL,

AND THAT WE GO FORWARD AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN COURT. MR. PAZ. JUST A REPLY, YOUR HONOR. THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF A

BE HEARD

THE COURT: MR. PAZ:

I DON'T BELIEVE

I SITUATION WHERE I FILE A MOTION FOR FEES AND THE ANSWER IS I "GEE, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T READ THE COURT'S ORDERS.
I'M KNOW

I SORRY, I ABOUT
MOTION WAIVER

I DIDN'T STATUTORY

READ THE LAW.

I'M SORRY,

I DIDN'T

FEES UNDER THE COURT OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THERE IS NO

CAN'T WE JUST GO BACK AND HAVE A NEW TRIAL?" FOR NEW TRIAL. BY THE DEFENDANT

THERE WAS A FULL AND COMPLETE AND HIS LAWYER IN FRONT OF THIS NOW IS "GEE, WE

I COURT.

SO I THINK THAT ALL WE'RE HEARING

I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE DOING, CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER CRACK

16 17

I AT

IT?"

I DON'T THINK THINK ITAPPROPRIATE. FIRST, I THAT'S WOULD REQUIRE

A SEPARATE,

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I NEW HAD

AND HAVE BEEN MOTION BY THE DEFENSE, A MOTION FOR HAVE TO SEPARATE DONE WITHIN 10 DAYS ON AND IT WOULD UNDER CCP SECTIONS 1008. I BELIEVE THE

RECONSIDERATION DEFENDANT WITH THAT.

AND HIS COUNSEL HAVE NOT OR COULD NOT COMPLY

THE MISUNDERSTANDING

ASPECT,

AND I DON'T

I UNDERSTAND

THE WEBSITE.

THE WEBSITE

IS NOT THE OFFICIAL

DOCKET NOR IS THE WEBSITE ANYTHING CONSIDER. IT'S SIMPLY A SERVICE

THAT THE COURT CAN PUBLIC IS OR

FOR THE GENERAL ON.

AND FOR COUNSEL. THE OFFICIAL

IT'S NOT TO BE RELIED AND WHETHER

THE DOCKET SCHEDULED

DOCUMENTS

IT WASN'T

II

THINK THAT'S

JUST ALL IRRELEVANT

ARGUMENT,

YOUR HONOR.

2 3 4

I I'LL
I

SUBMIT. THE COURT: MR. CONWAY:

MR. CONWAY, ANYTHING YOUR HONOR,

ELSE, SIR?

THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN

5 6

I PREPARED, STRESS AT

AGAIN IS THAT THE IMMEDIATELY. THAT WAS IT WAS NOT SIGNED INITIAL STIPULATION IS SIMPLY THAT

8 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

I NOT TRUE. WE SEVERAL DAYS.

STIPULATION OPPOSITION INDICATED TO THAT." STIPULATION EVERYTHING IT.

WERE CAME BACK COURT, THERE THE INITIAL WE HERE IN TO COURT. WAS A PERIOD OF AS I INDICATED IN MY AND I

THAT WAS PREPARED, MOTION,

WAS AN ADMISSION

OF LIABILITY.

TO MR. PAZ, I SAID "NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE WAS REDONE. THE THING AND THE

AND IT WAS -- THE INTENT WAS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE END OF SOUGHT AND THAT WAS THE

WOULD BE SETTLED;

THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY

REASON WHY THE STIPULATION

WAS SIGNED.

AND I WOULD POINT OUT, IT HAS TAKEN FIVE WEEKS AFTER WAS SIGNED, THAT STIPULATION, FOR THIS MOTION AFTER IT WAS REVISED AND IT IT WAS OF BE

TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT. AND IN THE INTEREST

CLEARLY A MISUNDERSTANDING. JUSTICE, DENIED, YOUR HONOR,

I WOULD ASK THAT THE MOTION

AND THAT THE COURT SCHEDULE

THIS CASE FOR TRIAL SO

IT CAN BE HEARD ON THE MERITS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THE

25 26 27 28

I MATTER
I

IS PAZ: MR. UNDER SUBMISSION. YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, MR. CONWAY: THANK YOU.

1
2

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HON. ANTHONY DrARTMENT 76 S~NIA M. MERCADO, B. DREWRY, COMM.

3 4

5
6
7

ET AL., PETITIONERS,

) )

)CASE NO. BSl18244

)

VS. J<DSE CASTANEDA,

) REPORTER'S ) CERTIFICATE
)
) )

8 9 10 RESPONDENT.

---1----------------I
I

)
)

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, VALARIE T. GERBER, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF IT E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY FOR THE

I C UNTY OF LOS ANGELES, IF REGOING PAGES,

THAT THE

1 THROUGH

9, COMPRISE

A FULL, TRUE AND TAKEN IN THE ABOVE

IC

RRECT TRANSCRIPT

OF THE PROCEEDINGS 13, 2009.

I EITITLED

CAUSE ON APRIL

DATED THIS 1ST OF MAY, 2009.

~Wcuiu~.~ OFFICIAL

, CSR 12819 REPORTER