AFFIDAVIT OF GARY N. REGER

Transcription

1 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON AFFIDAVIT OF GARY N. REGER BEFORE ME, personally appeared GARY N. REGER, of Jefferson County, Texas, and on his oath swears, states, and testifies as follows: Affidavit. 1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years of age and competent to make this 2. I am not disqualified from giving testimony. 3. I have personal knowledge of the matters to which I herein testify. 4. I will testify truthfully. 5. I am licensed to practice law in the state of Texas. 6. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A is my web page bio. Also attached as part of Exhibit A is a list of class action proceedings in which I have been class counsel and have become familiar with attorney fee awards in class actions. 7. I have recent commercial cases in the Beaumont state courts, the Western District of Texas, the Northern District of Texas, and the Southern District of Texas. 8. The class counsel in this case (Geter) requested that I express an expert opinion as to whether the hours spent on this case were reasonable and the reasonable values of the services performed based on the standards of the legal community in which the attorneys practice. In forming this opinion I applied the factors for determining the lodestar figure required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(i)(1) using the factors specified in Rule

2 1.04(b) of the Texas Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct; to wit: (a) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (b) the likelihood... that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (c) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (d) the amount involved and the results obtained; (e) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (f) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (g) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (h) whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered. 9. In forming my opinion I reviewed detailed time records for Tom Kiehnhoff and DeWayne Layfield attached as Exhibit B. These time records document the services performed, who performed the services and at what hourly rate, when they were performed, and how much time the work required. Exhibit C. 10. In forming my opinion I also reviewed the additional material listed on (2)

3 11. In addition, I generally reviewed reported attorney fee cases. I also applied my own experience. Without limitation, I have personal knowledge of the following particularly germane fee awards: a) In 2013 an Oklahoma state court approved a fee award to class counsel based on an hourly rate of $ per hour for Dewayne Layfield, and for lawyers of Mr. Kiehnoff s experience of $650 per hour. The Oklahoma court applied the standard of the reasonable value of the services performed based on the legal community in which the attorneys practice. 1 b) In 2004 a Jefferson County (Beaumont), Texas trial court found hourly rates of $ to $ for senior partners to be reasonable in a certified class action The result in this case was extraordinary in modern Texas class action history. The class was certified by the trial court, affirmed by the court of appeals and review was denied by the Texas Supreme Court. That is a rare victory for class counsel. 13. In my opinion the number of hours of work reported by Tom Kiehnhoff and DeWayne Layfield were reasonable. 14. In my opinion the reasonable hourly rates for Tom Kiehnhoff and DeWayne Layfield are $ per hour and $ respectively. 15. Based on my review of the evidence in this case, my general survey, and my personal knowledge, it is my opinion that the lodestar figure for class counsel in this case is $812,227.50, based on hours for Tom Kiehnhoff at a rate of $ per hour ($559,975) and hours for DeWayne Layfield at a rate of $ per hour ($252,252.50). 16. I also have reviewed the expenses of $249, incurred by class counsel in this case. These are itemized in Exhibit D. I find them to be necessary and reasonable. 1 The Stroud case identified on Exhibit A. Adjusted for inflation, this is $ in Shields v. BridgeStone/Firestone, Inc., No. 170,462, 172 nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas (2004). (3)

4

5 Exhibit A

6 Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP Gary Neale Reger Partner since 1981 Gary is listed in Best Lawyers in America in the categories of bankruptcy, banking (litigation, secured transactions) and real estate. He has been selected as a Texas Super Lawyer in business litigation. His experience covers a broad range of commercial work, including commercial arbitrations, commercial litigation, and commercial transactions. Gary has represented both defendants and plaintiffs in major litigated commercial disputes, in the areas of industrial and commercial insurance claims, bankruptcy, class actions, the Uniform Commercial Code, technology, real estate development, banking, usury, oil and gas, estates, fraud, partnership and corporate management, shareholder derivative claims, partnership and corporate dissolution, and other commercial disputes. Gary received his B.B.A. degree from Texas A&M University in 1973 and graduated with honors from the University of Texas School of Law in At the University of Texas School of Law, he was a member of the Order of the Coif. Gary is a Life Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation. He served on the board of directors for the Texas Association for Bank Counsel from 1983 until He has served on the Local Rules Committee for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Gary was honored by the Beaumont Foundation of America, which established the $2 million Gary Neale Reger Endowed Scholarship Fund in his honor at Texas A&M s Mays Business School. The fund provides scholarships for top students majoring in business honors. Gary sits on the board of directors of the Beaumont Family Shelter, Inc., which constructed and operates the Albert E. and Gena Reaud Family Shelter, a hospitality house for the families of patients of local hospitals administered through the Baptist Beaumont Hospital. Gary practices primarily in the firm's office in Beaumont.

7 I have been appointed as class counsel in the following matters: o o o o o o o o o Cause No. 1:99cv0120; Ethan Shaw, et al v. Toshiba America Information Systems, et al.; In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Cause No. A-162,152; Hal LaPray, et a. v. Compaq Computer Corporation; In the 60 th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. A-164,880; Muzette Alvis, et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company; In the 58 th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. D-164,939; Michael Albanese, et al v. Compaq Computer Corporation; In the 136 th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. E-165,336; David Packard, et a. v. emachines, Inc., et al; In the 172 nd Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas Case No. CJ ; Debbie Barrett v. Hewlett Packard Company; In the District Court for Cleveland County, Oklahoma Case No. CJ ; Stephen Grider and Beverly Grider v. Compaq Computer Corporation; In the District Court for Cleveland County, Oklahoma Case No. CJ L; Kiley Stroud v. emachines, Inc.; In the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma Cause No. 8725; Anderson Brothers Partnership, et al. v. EnerMart Energy Services Trust, et al; In the 287 th Judicial District Court, Parmer County, Texas I also acted as proposed class counsel in Case No. CV ; Tammy Collins, et al v. emachines, Inc., et al; San Joaquin County Superior Court, California, which was made moot before certification by settlement of a national class.

8 Exhibit B

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69 Exhibit C

70 Cause No CV FARMERS GROUP, INC Plaintiff VS. SANDRA GETER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 172 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT INDEX Of GETER DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY GNR VOL Brief of Appellee 12/ Reply Brief of Appellants Gerald Hooks and 9/2003 Lesly K.Hooks 3. Brief of Appellees 10/ Brief of Appellees State Texas 10/ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 10/ Brief of Appellants 7. Reply Brief of Appellants Jan Lubin, 11/ Gilberto Villanueva and Michael Palading 9. Brief of Appellants 1/ For items with exhibits or attachments, I also reviewed those as well as the described document.

71 10. Brief of Appellants 1/ Notice /Board Order Pursuant 11/ Reply Brief of Appellants 4/ Supplemental Brief of Appellants 6/ Brief of Appellants 11/ Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File 2/ Reply Brief of Appellants 17. Reply Brief of Appellants 3/ Reply of Brief of Appellants 3/ Appellants Supplemental Brief 4/ Appellants & Orders

72 Cause No CV FARMERS GROUP, INC Plaintiff VS. SANDRA GETER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 172 ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT INDEX Of GETER DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY GNR VOL Hearing on Motion for Class Certification April Motions July Appellants Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File July Appellants Brief 5. Original Proceeding August Objection by Sandra Geter to Motion for Consolidation August Original Proceeding August Hearing on Various Motion August Petition for Review August For items with exhibits or attachments, I also reviewed those as well as the described document. 1

73 10. Relators Reply to Real Party in Interest s Response to September Petition for Writ of Mandamus 12. Motion to Extend Time to File Response Brief on The December Merits of Respondents Gerald Hooks and Lesly K. Hooks 14. Response Brief on The Merits of Respondents Gerald December Response Brief on The Merits of Respondents Gerald December Response for Review on The Merits of Respondents December Appendix to Response Brief on The Merits of December Motion to Extend Time to File Response Brief on December Motion to Extend Time to File Response Brief on December Appendix to Respondents Brief on The Merits of August Petitioners Petition for Review March Order Granting Motion for Class Certification June Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief May First Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to May Petition for Review October Response to Petition for Review January Brief on The Merits of Petitioners April Response to Brief on The Merits of Petitioners May Reply Brief on The Merits of Petitioners July

74 30. Motion for Consolidation of Pretrial Proceedings 3

75 Exhibit D

76

77

78

79

80

81