IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES BARKER III, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:14-cv-2050-MC 

v. ORDER 

U.S. NATIONAL BANK, et al. 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

In an April 9, 2015 opinion, ECF No. 35, I explained in great detail Barker's improper 

conductin this case and several other similar cases Barker filed in the past. At the conclusion of 

that opinion, I noted that "Barker's conduct compels me to impose sanctions that will act as an 

adequate deterrent to prevent Barker from continuing his bad faith pattern of harassing litigation 

I-ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-02050-MC Document 41 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 3
and abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, this Court directs Barker to show cause as to why he 

should not be sanctioned for his behavior in this action, including an explanation of why 

, reasonable cost and attorney's fees are not appropriate." Opinion, 11. Barker's response-filed 

not in this case but in his other pending case before me-avoided any discussion of his conduct 

in this action and his previous lawsuits. Instead, Barker merely rehashed his arguments that 

discovery is needed in this case to reveal the nefarious nature of these defendants and the 

banking industry as a whole. Barker also reiterated his belief that there is only one case, not two. 

In short, Barker ignored my analysis explaining why his claims fail on the merits, and ignored 

responding to my order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for re-raising his nearly 

identical arguments previously rejected by numerous other courts. Therefore, in my July 9, 2015 

order, I concluded Barker's actions warranted sanctions in the form defendants' reasonable costs 

and attorney's fees. ECF No. 39. 

Defendants United States National Bank, U.S. Bankcorp, U.S. Bank as Trustee for 

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Systems, and 

Citibank N.A. as Indenture Trustee moved for $11,152.00 in attorney's fees. ECF No. 40. Barker 

did not respond to the motion for fees, and the time to do so is long passed. 

Carlos Rasch, an attorney with eight years of experience, moves for 40.1 hours at 

$250.00 per hour for a total of$10,025.00. Emilie Edling, an attorney with 11 years of 

experience, moves for 3.4 hours at $275.00 per hour for $935.00. Eric Houser, an attorney with 

28 years of experience, moves for .6 hours at $320.00 per hour for $192.00. The total fees 

requested amount to $11,152.00. 

2-0RDER 

Case 6:14-cv-02050-MC Document 41 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 3
I conclude the above hours and rates are reasonable. The hourly rates for each of the three 

attorneys fall at or slightly below the median hourly rate for attorneys with similar experience 

according to the latest Oregon State Bar Economic Survey. 

The time spent is reasonable. After conferring with Barker in an attempt to avoid wasting 

hours on a motion to dismiss, defendants fully briefed a successful motion to dismiss Barker's 

62-page complaint. ECF No. 40, 2-3; ECF No. 28. Barker responded to the motion to dismiss, 

and filed his own 23-page motion to consolidate his two pending cases before me. Barker's own 

filings needlessly drove up the hours required to properly defend this action. 44.1 total hours 

spent responding to Barker's various claims and motions is certainly reasonable under the 

circumstances. 

Defendants' motion for fees, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded 

11,152.00 in fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

~ .. DATED this.:.';h day of September, 2015. 

3-0RDER 

\. -L--

Michael McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:14-cv-02050-MC Document 41 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 3