Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00907/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00907-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER AWARDING PALM, INC. COSTS & FEES AGAINST REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP,

DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES—Master File No. C-05-03774 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 11/13/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re PALM TREO 600 and 650 LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

WILLIAMS, C-06-00907

Master File No. C-05-03774 RMW

ORDER AWARDING PALM, INC. COSTS &

FEES AGAINST REGINALD VON

TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP,

DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND

AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES

[Re Docket Nos. 15, 16, 17]

On September 12, 2006, the court issued an order to show cause to Reginald Von Terrell,

the Terrell Law Group, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, and Amamgbo & Associates, ordering them to

show why they should not be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for "unreasonably and

vexatiously" multiplying proceedings before this court. Terrell, Amamgbo, and their law firms

did not respond, and the court found that they had "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplied

proceedings in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927. On September 28, 2006, the court ordered that if

defendant Palm, Inc. submitted detailed billing records, the court would order Terrell, Amamgbo,

and their law firms to satisfy the costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees Palm reasonably incurred

responding to the complaint in this action.

Palm submits the declaration of one of its attorneys, Roger Collanton, as well as a billing

statement from Morrison & Foerster to Palm (redacted to show only entries relating to this action). 

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 18 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 (8 x $285) + [(2 + 3 + 3) x $510] = $6,360

ORDER AWARDING PALM, INC. COSTS & FEES AGAINST REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP,

DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES—Master File No. C-05-03774 RMW

JAH 2

These documents show that Morrison & Foerster billed Palm a total of $25,173.60 for responding

to the complaint in this action. The bulk of this cost, almost $20,000, was for Palm's motion to

dismiss. Approximately $3,000 was for preparation for a case management conference, which,

because Palm's motion to dismiss was granted, never occurred. Approximately $1,000 was spent

on preparing for alternative dispute resolution, which likewise did not occur. Only $88.60 is for

costs, consisting of photocopies and travel. 

Section § 1927 limits any recovery by Palm to what is reasonable. Palm moved to dismiss

the complaint because the plaintiffs served it ten days beyond the time limit set by Rule 4(m). The

issue was straightforward, and Palm's moving papers contained only four pages of argument

(which, under the circumstances, was more than sufficient). Successfully moving to dismiss this

complaint was of limited benefit to Palm, as no claims were extinguished and the main action still

exists as a putative class action. 

Eight hours of associate research time, two hours of review by a partner, and three hours

for a partner to travel to San Jose from San Francisco to appear at the hearing is the outer limit of

what would be reasonable to spend on this motion to dismiss. Palm also had to make

arrangements regarding a case management conference and alterative dispute resolution, although

in light of Palm's motion to dismiss, it would have been reasonable for a partner to spend no more

three hours on these matters. According to Collanton's declaration, his billing rate is $510 per

hour, and that of associate Claudia Vetesi is $285 per hour. A reasonable amount of attorneys'

fees for responding to this complaint is therefore $6,360.1

 The costs of $88.60 are not

unreasonable. Palm is therefore entitled to collect $6,448.60 from Terrell, Amamgbo, and their

law firms; Terrell, Amamgbo, and their law firms shall be jointly and severally liable for this debt.

The court notes that under California Business & Professions Code § 6068(o)(3), Terrell and

Amamgbo are required to report this sanction to the State Bar of California.

DATED: 11/13/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 18 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER AWARDING PALM, INC. COSTS & FEES AGAINST REGINALD VON TERRELL, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP,

DONALD CHIDI AMAMGBO, AND AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES—Master File No. C-05-03774 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Reginald Von Terrell REGGIET2@AOL.COM 

Donald Chidi Amamgbo DonaldAmamgbo@Citycom.com 

Ira P. Rothken ndca@techfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Roger E. Collanton rcollanton@mofo.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 11/1306 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00907-RMW Document 18 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3