AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager
2:13-cv-00007
| E.D. Cal. | Aug 19, 2014Background
- Parsons Behle & Latimer (PBL) intervened alleging Yeager owes unpaid fees totaling at least $106,408.53 arising from PBL’s work in Yeager v. AT&T.
- The underlying AT&T v. Yeager judgment awarded Yeager $135,000 in damages and $173,585.72 in fees and costs, plus a $7,763.63 supplement.
- AT&T deposited $308,668.95 with the court (the damages and fees) and later deposited an additional $7,763.63; these funds were at issue for allocation.
- PBL asserted that statutorily awarded fees under California Civil Code § 3344 may be paid directly to the attorney of record and sought the unpaid balance as part of the interpleader/disbursement.
- Yeager disputed the amount owed, arguing payments totaling $86,692.98 were already applied to the fees and that the remaining balance of $81,827.65 was not properly established by admissible evidence.
- The court denied PBL’s summary judgment motion, finding the billing summary offered by PBL was not properly authenticated and thus inadmissible at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PBL is entitled to unpaid statutory fees under § 3344. | PBL argues Yeager owes $81,827.65 of the awarded fees under § 3344. | Yeager contends the amount and basis for unpaid fees are not properly proven and disputes the billing evidence. | Denied; court found no admissible evidence establishing unpaid balance. |
| Whether the billing summary is admissible to prove the amounts. | PBL relies on the billing summary to show payments and outstanding balance. | Yeager challenges authentication; the billing summary lacks proper personal knowledge authentication. | Denied; billing summary not properly authenticated; cannot be used at summary judgment. |
| Whether Zarian's declaration suffices to authenticate the billing summary. | Zarian's declaration attests to the summary and balances. | The declaration lacks personal knowledge and proper authentication of the billing details. | Denied; court required authenticating testimony with proper foundation. |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate given the evidence of payments already made. | Even with payments, balance remains due under the fee award. | Without admissible evidence of payments and balance, no genuine issue can be resolved in PBL’s favor. | Denied; no genuine issue of material fact established due to evidentiary deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (initial burden shifting in summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts; genuine dispute required)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; rational trier of fact)
- Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (admissibility of evidence at summary judgment depends on content, not form)
- Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (unauthenticated documents cannot be considered at summary judgment)
- Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179 (9th Cir. 1988) (authentication requirements for exhibits)
- In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence authentication standards on summary judgment)
- Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D. Or. 2010) (proper authentication of exhibits; personal knowledge)
- Kruse v. Hawai’i, 857 F. Supp. 741 (D. Haw. 1994) (authentication of case documents)
- Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal. 4th 572 (Cal. 2001) (attorney fees allocation; payment of fee awards)