in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

Case Information

No. 01-15-00567-CV FILED IN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISADICTION, TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/14/2015 12:29:57 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

MACKEY GLEN PETERSON, TONYA PETERSON, DON LESLIE PETERSON AND LONNY PETERSON, APPELLANTS

v.

SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC., D/B/A SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND, APPELLEE

Appendix Tab 49 Part 1

P. Alan Sanders
Tx. State Bar No: 17602100
Joshua Davis
Tx. State Bar No. 24031993
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &; Smith, LLP
Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400
24 Greenway Plaza
Houston, Texas, 77046
(713) 659-6767
(713) 759-6830 - Fax
Alan.Sanders@LewisBrisbois.com
Josh.Davis@LewisBrisbois.com

TAB 49 Page # 0268 - 0353

(3)

DATA-ENTRY

PICK UP THIS DATE

PROBATE COURT 1

CAUSE NO. 427,208

AFPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO RULE 91a ORDER ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 10, 2014

Defendant, Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land (Silverado) files this Application for Attorney Fees Pursuant to Rule 91a Order Entered On November 10, 2014 consistent with the Court's Local Rules and pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.7.

91a MOTION TO DISMISS: BRIEF BACKGROUND

Silverado filed a Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss on September 25, 2014. ^[1] Plaintiffs' filed a Fourth Amended Petition ^[2] on October 6, 2014 and a Response in Opposition ^[3] to the pending Rule 91a motion on October 27, 2014. Silverado timely filed its Partial Withdrawal and Reply to

Plaintiffs' Response on November 6, 2014.4 The Motion to Dismiss was heard on November 7, 2014 at which time the Court granted Silverado's 91a Motion to Dismiss and issued its Order ^[5] on the forty-fifth day following the date of filing - November 10, 2014. All challenged causes of action were dismissed with prejudice which included: false imprisonment, assault and battery, and conspiracy.

Silverado now moves for an award of all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action.

RULE 91a. 7

Except in an action by or against a governmental entity or a public official acting in his or her official capacity or under color of law, the court must award the prevailing party on the motion all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged cause of action in the trial court. The court must consider evidence regarding costs and fees in determining award.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a. 7 (emphasis added). The first and only opinion interpreting 91a. 7 was issued November 20, 2014. Drake v. Chase Bank, 2014 No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.). Drake involved a pro se plaintiff who brought claims against Chase Bank for irreparable harm to his credit and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. The trial court granted defendant's 91a Motion to Dismiss and awarded it $\$2,480$ in costs and fees. Id. at *1. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider which was denied and the court awarded defendant its fees related to that motion as well in the amount of $\$1,545$ . Id.

Applying a de novo standard of review, the Drake Court found that "...an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party on a rule 91a motion to dismiss is mandatory, not discretionary." Id. at 5. Notably, the trial court had granted plaintiff indigent status during the proceedings. Id. at 4. Nevertheless, the Drake Court found that "the rule says nothing about exempting indigent parties from paying attorneys' fees to a party who prevails under rule 91a." Id. at 5 citing ((In re Christus Spohn Hosp. Kleberg, 222 S.W.3d 434, 437 (Tex. 2007 ) (orig. proceeding) (stating that courts apply the same rules of construction that govern the interpretation of statutes when construing rules of procedure)); (City of Rockwell v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008) (stating that courts construe statutes according to their plain and common meaning))). The court then affirmed the trial courts award of fees as to the 91a motion as well as the motion to reconsider and pointed out that defendant incurred the additional fees in connection with its Rule 91a challenge and the causes of action subject to the same. Id. at 6. Specifically, the Drake Court cited Rule 91 a. 7 which mandates an "award of all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged cause of action." Id. (emphasis in original). Although it is the first case interpreting an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule 91a, it is consistent with the precedent of strict construction regarding this statute. See ((Wooley v. Schaffer, No. 14-13-00385CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8983 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2014)) (Datley v. Thorpe, No. 01-13-00492-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9630 at *10 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 28, 2014)) (GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Hollie Toups, 429 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. - Beaumont, 2014, pet. denied)) (Lopez-Welch v. State Farm Lloyds, 3:14-CV-2416-L, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154741 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2014)) (Plascencia v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 4:14-CV-524-A, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135081 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2014)) (Oldham v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 3:14-CV-575-B, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107044; 2014 WL 3855238 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2014))).

While Rule 91 a. 7 is silent as to the evidence and procedure required prior to imposition of fees, the trial court in Drake chose to conduct a hearing rather than accepting evidence by submission. 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 at *7. It did not require Chase Bank to submit its itemized invoices and/or conduct a Lodestar analysis. In lieu thereof, it accepted an affidavit and live testimony establishing "the hours devoted to the matter, who performed the work, the rate charged, what work was performed, and that the fees were reasonable and necessary. Id. The Court applied the Arthur Anderson reasonableness factors applied when contingent fee agreements are at issue. Id. The Drake Court found the that the trial court did not abuse its discretion related to its fee award. Id.

SILVERADO'S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Consistent with the Court's Local Rules, Silverado files this Application for Attorney Fees and presents evidence supporting the reasonable and necessary fees incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action pursuant to the lodestar method. ^[8] Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.7; Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.); Long v. Griffin, No. 111021, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 304 (Tex. April 25, 2014) (per curiam).

A. Lodestar Method

A request for attorney fees employs the lodestar method when it relates hours worked for each attorney multiplied by their hourly rates for a total fee. Griffin, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 304 (Tex. April 25, 2014) at 6. To satisfy lodestar, "sufficient evidence includes, at a minimum, evidence 'of the services performed, who performed them and at what hourly rate, when they were performed, and how much time the work required." Id. citing (El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivias, 370 S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex. 2012)). Total number of hours worked and generalities will not suffice. Id. at 6-7. However, ^[8] On November 19, 2014, Ms. Cres Machicek - Guardianship Coordinator - advised counsel regarding the Court's procedural requirements related to the manner in which the Court would conduct the 91 a. 7 evidentiary proceeding.

an affidavit that generally describes the services performed, who completed same and at what hourly rate that are accompanied by evidence to inform the trial court of the time spent on specific tasks and corresponding dates should constitute sufficient evidence to satisfy the lodestar method. Id. at $*7-8$ .

B. Segregation of Fees is Not Required Pursuant to 9la. 7

While the lodestar method is analogous, the context is distinct insofar as fee segregation amongst prevailing claims is inapplicable for the following reasons. Rule 91 a. 7 requires an award of all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action. The matter pending before this Court is not one in which a verdict has been returned as to some causes of action which would support an award of fees and others that would not. Compare (Griffin, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 304 (Tex. April 25, 2014)) with (Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.7). 91a. 7 mandates recovery of fees on all challenged causes of action to the prevailing party. Id.; see also Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.). C. Silverado's Attorneys' Fees Incurred With Respect to the Dismissed Causes of ACTION: FALSE IMPRINONMENT, ASSAULT AND BATTERY, AND CONSPIRACY

Silverado first learned of this litigation on July 18, 2014 through negative publicity published by Plaintiffs on the internet. Tex. R. Civ. E. 801(e)(2)(C)-(D). While investigating, Silverado discovered Plaintiffs' Original Petition filed on July 17, 2014 in the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas which included claims against "Silverado Senior Living Care Facility" for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and conspiracy. ^[7] Plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition and Jury Demand on July 23, 2014 which again named "Silverado Senior Living Care Facility" and

included claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and conspiracy. ^[8] On July 25, 2014, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Original Petition was filed with the same allegations against Silverado although it remained improperly named and had not been served. ^[9] Silverado chose to waive service and enter an appearance on July 28, 2014 in light of Plaintiffs' request for extraordinary relief in the form of an application for temporary restraining order, temporary injunction and the emergency hearing related to the same which Plaintiffs set for July 28, 2014.

Amidst the hundreds of pages of pleadings, Plaintiffs claims have at all times been inflammatory and centered on allegations that Silverado, its staff, physicians or others independently named - some of which were later nonsuited - were drugging Ruby Peterson, holding her against her will, and refusing Plaintiffs' visitation without legal authority. ^[10] Plaintiffs pursued the challenged causes of action in a manner which drove the cost of litigation up. Silverado was forced to incur significant expense defending against both a federal and state lawsuit as well as a media campaign in direct violation of the Court's Protective Order. The dismissed causes of action comprised Plaintiffs entire case against Silverado until October 6, 2014 with the Fourth Amended Petition which includes a new allegation of breach of fiduciary duty at Paragraph 88 and will be subject to another 91a Motion to Dismies. See Exhibit "A," (Affidavit of Josh K. Davis). The challenged causes of action required a multi-faceted defense related to the federal and state lawsuits as well as the repeated violations of Court orders.

This Court is well-versed in Plaintiffs antics related to this vexatious and harassing litigation, but one party-opponent admission is worth highlighting to reinforce that the intent and purpose behind the federal litigation. On August 3, 2014, Ms. Schwager posts a message on Facebook to Mr. Davis open to the public: "As I've said from day one, this is not about you, but if you persist in violating my client's rights and Ruby's, it will be. I keep wondering when the reality of the federal case will set in. Nominal damages are pled for now. But the press is coming. I assure you that." Tex. R. Civ. E. 801 (c)(2)(C)-(D). In addition, following settlement with Carol Anne Manley and David Peterson, Plaintiffs now seek to recover fees and expenses from the estate of Ruby Peterson for bringing this lawsuit "as well as in another case filed in federal court" in the amount of $\$187,056.73.{}^{11}$ The strategy in bringing the federal lawsuit appears to have been intimidation and/or berate Silverado into settlement. Nevertheless, the result was to force Silverado to incur significant fees defending a meritless lawsuit in both Federal and State Court. Those costs and fees are now due.

The total fees incurred defending against the challenged causes of action as of Sunday, November 30, 2014 are $\$117,183.40$ . See Exhibit "A," (Affidavit of Josh K. Davis) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein. The fees continue to accrue and will be supplemented at the time of the hearing with additional fee statements and oral testimony. It is within the Court's sound discretion to determine the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented regarding the amount of fees which are reasonable and necessary. Ridge Oil Co. v. Guinn Irvs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d. 143 (Tex. 2004) (court-ordered award of attorneys' fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard). The Drake Court reinforces that Rule 91 a. 7 requires an "award of all costs and

reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to the challenged cause of action." 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 at *6. The costs of defending the federal lawsuit were incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action as demonstrated above. However, solely in an abundance of caution and for the benefit of the Court, Silverado identifies the following total amount of $\$18,830.00$ as the amount solely related to the federal matter should the Court find that defense of the federal lawsuit - even in these extreme circumstances - was not incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action.

D. Subsequent Motions &; Costs

Silverado is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs in the event Plaintiffs appeal and/or engage in subsequent motion practice related to the challenged causes of action and Court's findings. Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.). If Plaintiffs find it necessary to file a Motion to Reconsider and/or Rescind, Silverado requests $\$2,500.00$ as the reasonable and necessary fees for handling the responsive briefing and hearing related to the same. See Exhibit "A," Affidavit of Josh K. Davis. If the matter is appealed, Silverado requests $\$10,000.00$ for its reasonable and necessary fees for handling the appellee's case in the court of appeals, $\$7,500.00$ if plaintiff files a Writ of Error or Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Texas, and $\$7,500.00$ if the Writ of Error or Petition for Review is Granted by the Supreme Court of Texas. See id. In addition to its fees, Silverado requests its costs. Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014, no pet. h.).

PRAYER

Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land requests the Court award it its costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred in an amount not less than $\$117,183.40$ . Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.7; see also, Drake, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort

Worth Nov. 20, 2014). Silverado further requests its fees in the event of a Motion to Reconsider and/or Rescind in the amount of $\$2,500.00$ , for handling the appellee's case in the court of appeals in the amount of $\$10,000$ , and $\$7,500$ if plaintiff files a Writ of Error or Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Texas, and $\$7,500$ if the Writ of Error or Petition for Review is Granted by the Supreme Court of Texas.

Respectfully submitted, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &; SMITH, LLP /S/ Josh K. Davis JOSH K. DAVIS State Bar No. 24031993 CHRISTIAN R. JOHNSON State Bar No. 24062345 Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400 24 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 659-6767 Telephone (713) 759-6830 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC. D/B/A SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel of record via e-file, facsimile, hand delivery and/or certified mail, return receipt requested on this 1st December, 2014.

Philip M. Ross 1006 Holbrook Road San Antonio, Texas 78218 Attorney for Plaintiffs Candice L Schwager The Schwager Law Firm 1417 Ramada Dr. Houston, Texas 77062

Attorney for Plaintiffs Sarah Patel Pacheco Crain, Caton &; James, PC 1401 McKinney Street 1700 Five Houston Center Houston, Texas 77010 Attorneys for Carol Manley and David Peterson Jill W. Young MacIntyre, McCulloch, Stanfield &; Young, LLP 2900 Wesleyan, Suite 150 Houston, Texas 77027 W. Russ Jones

Underwood, Jones Scherrer &; Malouf, PLLC 5177 Richmond Ave, Suite 505 Houston, Texas 77056 /S' Josh K. Davis JOSH K. DAVIS

| RUBY S. PETERSON, Individually, | IN PROBATE COURT NO. 1 | | :--: | :--: | | MACKEY ("MACK") GLEN PETERSON | | | PETERSON, Individually, Next Friend | | | Attorney-in Fact for RUBY | | | PETERSON, DON LESLIE PETERSON | | | Individually, Next Friend, Attorney-in- | | | Fact of RUBY S. PETERSON, LONNY | | | PETERSON, Individually and Next Friend | | | Of RUBY S. Peterson | | | VS. | | | CAROL ANNE MANLEY, | | | DAVID PETERSON, SILVERADO | | | SENIOR LIVING, INC. d/b/a SILVERADO§ | | | SENIOR LIVING - SUGAR LAND | |

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSH K. DAVIS

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day, personally appeared Josh K. Davis a person who is personally known to me. After I administered an oath to him, upon his oath, he stated:

1. "My name is Josh K. Davis. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years and have never been convicted of a felony. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and fully competent to testify to the matters herein stated, and I have personal knowledge of every statement made herein.
2. I am a licensed attorney in the State of Texas, a partner with the law firm of Lewis Brisbois Biagaard &; Smith, L.L.P., and have been employed by Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land (Silverado) to defend it in the above-entitled and numbered cause. This affidavit is prepared in support of Application for Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Rule 91a Order Entered On November 10, 2014.
3. As a partner for Lewis Brisbois Biagaard &; Smith LLP ("LBBS") I am familiar with its business practices. As a part of its usual and regular business, LBBS keeps regular records of legal work performed. I am familiar with the records kept and maintained in the usual and regular course of business. I have personal supervision, custody, control and access to the records of this firm as they pertain to the legal services rendered herein. I have examined the records kept and maintained by this firm in the regular course of its business and such records reflect certain transactions in the rendering of legal services in the matter. In the

normal course of my duties and responsibilities I receive, review and maintain invoices sent to my clients which include supporting documentation and/or records and am a custodian of the same. Furthermore, it is in the normal course of my duties and responsibilities to review and maintain pre-bills which are contemporaneous time records maintained in the regular course of business prior to being sent to the client for payment and am custodian of the same. Attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 1, and incorporated into it by reference, are true and correct copies of redacted ^[1] invoices with supporting cost and billing records (Bates Nos. SSL 000001-000076) which were incurred and submitted for payment related to the above referenced matter on the date noted thereon as well as redacted pre-bills (Bates Nos. SSL 000077-000126) which reflect attorney fees that have been incurred and will be invoiced in mid-December per guidelines. The invoices with supporting records as well as pre-bills are made as a course of regularly conducted business by persons with knowledge at or near the time of making by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge of the event or information recorded. LBBS maintains and/or keeps a copy of the invoices with supporting records and pre-bills in the regular course of its business. 4. I am very familiar with the nature of this case and the work which has been performed to date. I am knowledgeable with the number of hours spent and the amounts charged to my client by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &; Smith, L.L.P. I am familiar with what lawyers of similar expert ability in the State of Texas are charging for similar services rendered in connection with the defense of similar matters. I have been continuously licensed in the State of Texas since 2001, and I have not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings or grievances. My resume is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 2, is incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein and includes additional detail regarding my knowledge, education, background and experience. 5. In connection with my defense of this case, Defendant has incurred, to date, attorney fees and costs in the amount of $\$117,183.40$ with regard to defending against the challenged causes of action which were dismissed on November 10, 2014 and are recoverable pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.7. The challenged causes of action comprised Plaintiffs complete lawsuit against Defendant for the life of the litigation until Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition which appears to have added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant. As Plaintiffs failed to nonsuit this new allegation following the hearing on the 91a Motion to Dismiss, counsel recently inquired whether or not an additional 91a Motion to Dismiss related to this cause of action would be necessary. Exhibit 3 to this Affidavit is a true and correct copy of email correspondence to opposing counsel reflecting the inquiry which was made and kept in the regular course of business at the time noted on the same by a person with knowledge and is incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein. In light of Plaintiffs failure to timely respond, an additional 91a Motion to Dismiss will be required. Fees related to the same will be segregated should it prove necessary. However, to the date of this fee application, Defendant has not incurred any fees or costs solely related to Plaintiffs' new allegation against Silverado for breach of fiduciary duty at

Paragraph 88 of the Fourth Amended Petition; therefore, segregation of fees related to this cause of action is not necessary at this time. 6. Such fees include, but are not limited to, the investigation into allegations made by plaintiff, preparing pleadings and motions in defense of Defendant, discovery including depositions, communication with client and all other counsel, hearing attendance and necessary investigation work, preparation of this motion and the necessary legal research required for its completion. These actions were reasonable and necessary for the representation of Silverado. Please see the records attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein for a detailed accounting of the services performed, who performed them, at what hourly rate, when they were performed, and how much time the work required to complete. 7. The amount requested for all costs and reasonable and necessary fees incurred with respect to the challenged causes of action reflects the number of hours spent ( 330.6 hours of partner time; 343.1 hours of associate time and 23.6 hours of law clerk time) at the amount charged by an hour rate of $\$190$ per hour for partners, $\$175$ per hour for associates and $\$65$ per hour for Law Clerks. ^[3] In my opinion, all of the time spent and expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary. 8. Plaintiffs chose to pursue a federal lawsuit in furtherance of the pending state court matter forcing Defendant to incur reasonable and necessary fees defending against the challenged causes of action. ^[3] Plaintiffs attempt to recover their federal fees as part of the state court proceeding, but in an abundance of caution and for the convenience of the Court, Defendant segregates and identifies that of the amounts identified above it has incurred, to date, attorney fees in the amount of $\$18,830.00$ with regard to defending against the federal lawsuit filed contemporaneously with this state court proceeding. 9. If Plaintiffs find it necessary to file a Motion to Reconsider and/or Rescind, it is my opinion that $\$2,500.00$ would be the reasonable and necessary fees for handling the responsive briefing and hearing related to the same. If the matter is appealed, it is my opinion that $\$10,000.00$ would be the reasonable and necessary fees for handling the appeller's case in the court of appeals, $\$7,500.00$ if plaintiff files a Writ of Error or Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Texas, and $\$7,500.00$ if the Writ of Error or Petition for Review is Granted by the Supreme Court of Texas.

1. Additionally, it is anticipated that such request will require amendment to include costs related to the need for counsel to attend the hearing related to this fee application, the additional time required in preparation, and argument in support of this application. Further, it is anticipated that additional fees will be incurred in receipt of Plaintiffs' anticipated Response and the preparation of a Reply as necessary.
2. The above stated fees are in my opinion reasonable and necessary in relation to the customary fees charged for the same or similar services in Harris County, Texas, considering the experience, reputation, and ability of myself and the attorneys at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &; Smith, L.L.P. who have worked on this case, the controversy involved, the time limitations imposed, the results obtained, and the nature and length of the relationship between Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &; Smith, L.L.P. and Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land."

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by LON K. DANI, Affiant, on the 1st day of December, 2014.

DANI

Notary Public, State of Texas

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

Life To Date Fees Billed: 47,427.50 Life To Date Deb. Billed: 108.17 *Life to Date Total Billed: 47,533.67

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith LiP

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; Smith $u_p$

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith Lip

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith Llp

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith up

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith Lp

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith $u_{12}$

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith Lif

*** Please return this page with your payment. *** Life To Date Fees Sited: $72,332.40$ Life To Date Dab. Sited: $193.01$ *Life to Date Total Sited: $72,525.41$

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; SMith llp

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

DEBURSEMENTS MADE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT, FOR WHICH BLLB HAVE NOT YET BEEN NEVERED, WILL APPEAR ON A LATER STATENEM?

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; Smith $1.p$

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGARD &; SMITH LLJ

| File Number | 50013-1476 | CNA Specialty Claims | | 1015/14 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | JHDY | | Peterson v. Silverado Senior Living | Page | 5 | | Date | Afry | Description of Services Replored | Hours | Amount | | 9/18/14 | JCL | Discovery Motions: Appear For/Attend: Travel to courthouse for hearing on motion for sanctions; await hearing and return to office after hearing rescheduled due to weather | 2.8 | 490.00 | | 9/18/14 | JFD | Other Written Motions &; Submiss.: Plan &; Prepare For: Plan and prepare for Defensants Motion for Contempt and Motion for Sanctions | | | | 9/18/14 | JFD | Dispositive Motions: Appear For/Attend: Appear for and attend Hearing on Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Contempt, meeting with court and all counsel regarding need to reschedule hearing. | 3.6 | 684.00 | | 9/18/14 | JFD | Expert Discovery: Plan &; Prepare For: Begin preparations for deposition of Plaintiff's expert Mark Kunk, M.D. | 2.2 | 418.00 | | 9/19/14 | JCL | Discovery Motions: Draft/Review: Draft subpoena to Counsel for Plaintiffs, Candoce Schwager, for appearance at hearing on motion for sanctions, drafting duces lecurn for her to bring all documentation regarding her alleged disability | 2.3 | 437.00 | | 9/19/14 | JFD | Expert Discovery: Appear For/Attend: Appear for and attend deposition of Mark Kunk, M.D., conducted examination in defense of client issues and allegations made by plaintiff, meeting with defense and cast upon conclusion for the future | 2.1 | 367.50 | | 9/20/14 | JFD | Plautings: Review/Analyz | 5.7 | 1,083.00 | | 9/22/14 | CJ | Plauting: Review/Analyz | 9 | 171.00 | | 9/22/14 | CJ | Dispositive Motions: Draft/Review: Prepare Rule 91(a) Motion to Dismiss. | 2.6 | 480.00 | | 9/22/14 | CJ | Plauting: Draft/Review: Revise First Amended Pies to the Jurisdiction and Answer subject thereto in support of Motion to Dismiss in preparation of filing. | 3 | 52.50 | | 9/22/14 | JCL | Discovery Motions: Plan &; Prepare For: Review | | | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Plauting: Review/Analyz: Receipt and review voluminous emails from Russ Jones, Kathleen Beduse, Candice Schwager and Judge Ruth Ann Stiles regarding Motions for Sanctions as set, Motion for Continuance and Court's position on hearings going forward. | 5 | 87.50 | | 9/23/14 | CJ | Plauting: Review/Analyz | 9 | 171.00 | | 9/23/14 | CJ | Plauting: Review/Analyz | 1.8 | 315.00 | | 9/23/14 | CJ | Dispositive Motions: Draft/Review: Continue preparation of the 91(a) Motion to Dismiss. | 8 | 140.00 | | 9/23/14 | JCL | Discovery Motions: Draft/Review: Research and drafting response to Plaintiff/ motion for protection and motion to compel meeting between Dr. Tennison and counsel and Ruby Peterson | 1.5 | 282.50 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Plauting: Review/Analyz | 4 | 76.00 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Analysis Strategy: Draft/Review: Prepare for the purpose of the 91(a) Motion to Dismiss. | 4 | 76.00 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Plauting: Review/Analyz | 4 | 76.00 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Analysis Strategy: Review/Analyz | 3 | 57.00 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Analysis/Stripsy: Communicate/With Client): Telephone conference with regarding the subject of the 91(a) Motion to Dismiss. | 2 | 38.00 | | 9/23/14 | JFD | Other Written Motions &; Submiss.: Review/Analyz: Receipt and review of multiple | | |

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith Llp

Lewis Brisbois Bisgand &; Smith i.p

Lewis Brisbois BisGand &; SMith llp

https://wellsonecard.wellsfargo.com/user/ksn/PrintTransactionsPopup do 9/8/2014

| Vendor: | 82739 | Niels Fargo Commercial Card Services | | Doc ID: 00019FES-1 | | Page | 1 of 6 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | V | 1788806 | Dist: 4099336 | | Date: 9/29/14 | | Amount: | 7.46 |

https://wellsonecard.wellsfargo.com/scer/ksoPrintTransactionsPopup Vander: 82739 Mela Fargo Commercial Card Services Dust: 020019FES-2

https://wellscoescard.wellsfargo.com/coer/ksoPrintTransactionsPopup.do

http://wellsunecard.wellsfargo.com/user/kanPrintTransactionsPopup.

https://wellsonecard.wellslarge.com/coer/kenPrintTransactionsPopup do 9/8/2014

| Vendor: | 62739 | Wells Fargo Commercial Card Services | | | Doc.10: 00019FES-S Date: 9/09/14 | | Page Amount: | 5 of 5 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | V | 1788908 | Dist: 4089038 | | | | | | |

https://weibonecard.wellsfargo.com/ccer/ksnPrintTransactionsPopup.do

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH ${\omega }_p$

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH U.P

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLJ

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH uF

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BisGAARD &; SMITH U.F

This site and all contents Copyright (C) 2003-2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Loading...

This site and all contents Copyright (c) 2009-2014 Thomas Reuters. All rights reserved.

This site and all contents Copyright (C) 2013-2014 Thomas Reuters. All rights reserved.

This site and all contents Copyright (2000-2014 Thomsen Recers. All rights reserved. Loading...

This site and all contents Copyright (b)2003-2014 Thomson Reutons. All rights reserved.

Leading... https://www.prodocefile.com/ViewFiling.aspx?param=2626086 $9/29/2014$

https://www.producefile.com/ViewFiling.aspx?param=2626474 9/30/2014

This site and all contents Copyright (2012) 2014 Thomas Reuters, All rights reserved.

Loading...

NOTES

${}^1$ On file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein.

${}^2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^3\mathrm{l}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^4\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^5\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^7$ On file with the Harris County District Clerk and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein.

${}^8\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$

${}^9\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$

${}^{10}$ See Plaintiffs' Original Petition, Amended Petition and Jury Demand, Second Amended Petition and Jury Demand, Third Amended Petition and Contest to Guardianship Application, and Fourth Amended Petition all of which are on file with this Court and/or the 129th Judicial District Court and are incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein.

${}^{11}$ See Second Supplement to Application for Payment of Attorney's Fees and Expenses, Expert Witness Fees and Expenses, and Costs of Court on file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out fully herein.

${}^1$ Unredacted records are being simultaneously submitted to the Court for in camera review and inspection.

${}^3$ A contractual rate increase went into effect on September 1, 2014 for this client. A lower rate or $\$175$ per hour for partners, $\$160$ per hour for associates and the same rate of $\$65$ per hour for law clerks was previously charged as reflected on the itemized invoices.

${}^3$ See Supplement to Application for Payment of Attorney's Fees and Expenses, Expert witness Fees and Expenses and Costs of Court, on file with the Court and incorporated by reference as if set out herein, at paragraph one and at Candice Schwager's itemized invoices wherein she attempts to have the estate of Ruby Peterson reimburse attorneys fees for the federal lawsuit following settlement with other parties.

DISBURSEMENTS MADE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT, FOR WHICH BILL A HAVE NOT YET BEEN RECEIVED. WILL AFPEAR ON A LATER STATEMENT

Case Details

Case Name: in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Dec 14, 2015

Docket Number: 01-15-00567-CV

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.