I 

I 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COJ.iffi'10Jr=t.P1814:3Susoc~ 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

THE LANCE AND LINDA NEIBAUER 

JOINT TRUST, an Oregon Trust, by and 

Through LANCE NEIBAUER, as trustee, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

MICHAEL J. KURGAN, an individual, 

Defendant, 

) Case No.: 6:14-cv-01192-MC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ) 

MICHAEL J. KURGAN ("KURGAN") REPLY TO REQUEST FOR 

ATTORNEY FEES BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL 

Defendant Kurgan respectfully responds to the request by Plaintiffs counsel for 

attorney fees of $40,538.50 on the grounds that they are not reasonably related to the motion for 

contempt and the amounts sought are unreasonably high. 

INTRODUCTION 

Defendant Kurgan did not perpetrate any fraud upon the court. The pay checks that the 

Plaintiff claims were a part of some fraud were never cashed. From the outset of this case, I have 

always contended that the proper court was Florida, where I reside and have sought to have this 

matter heard there and apply my Florida Constitutional claims of exemptions. Plaintiff is charging 

fees related to the research and application of California law, which is not my state of residence. 

ARGUMENT 

1. As for the bill of costs, (Plaintiffs Exhibit 2) the amounts which are improperly charged 

go back to April 1 sr, 2015 which was clearly unrelated to the motion for contempt, and 

included improper charges like obtaining certified copies of the judgment for $92 (2 

1 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR FEES 
l 

J 

charges at $46); foreign judgment filing fee of $500.10, State of Oregon Filing fee 

($252), postage ($30.29), and all of the charges on page 1 of the Exhibit 2 clearly do not 

relate to a motion for contempt. The Second page of the exhibit 2 similarly are unrelated 

I to the claim of contempt. The total amount of $3409. 91 are improperly sought and are 

unrelated to the contempt charge. 

2. The charges listed on page 1 of Exhibit 1 all relate to garnishment and are unrelated to 

any contempt. As a result, the amount of $5290 should be removed from the award as it 

does not apply to the contempt. 

3. The charges on page 2 of the 6 pages are also extremely remote in time and are unrelated 

to the current motion for contempt and should not be awarded. The court should note the 

charge on 9/8/2915 "Draft post-judgment interrogatories and analyze pertinent 

California law to ensure the interrogatories are compliant" for $632.50" Plaintiff 

resides in Florida, and FLORIDA exemption laws apply, not California. They were not 

even researching the correct state laws and should not be entitled to any recovery for 

those unrelated charges. As result, the total charges of $6735 on the second page Exhibit 

1, page 2, should also be removed. 

4. Similarly, on the next page, page 3 of 6, there are no related charges except for maybe 

those on 4117/2017 for $769.50. So out of the entire amount on the second page, the 

Plaintiff at most only had $769.50 of even remotely related charges. 

5. On page 4 of 6 there is only one charge of $357.50 claiming charges for inadequate 

discovery responses. That can be remotely related to the potential charges. 

6. On page 5 of 6, there are charges related to contempt other than $975 on 5/10/2017 and 

email for $65 and a $45 charge for email and telephone conference with the court. Page 

2 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR FEES 
3 

6 of 6 even lists a charge of $627 to prepare a motion to compel "Eskanos' compliance 

with subpoena" where the Court already ordered an in camera review and David Harris 

fully responded for he and Eskanos. 

7. As a result, of the charges of $40,53 8.50, it only appears that maybe $1127 apply to the 

motion to compel for contempt. That is not even clear from the billings. However, what 

is clear is that the Plaintiff is seeking to obtain fees for matters well outside the court 

order; for researching California law that is inapplicable, and for fees which were not 

even necessarily incurred. 

8. Finally, there is no retainer agreement, nor any testimony from the Plaintiff that any of 

the fees sought were ever even paid by the Plaintiff or the trust. There is not even a 

retainer agreement showing the fees were due or owing. 

Respectfully Submitted 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny the claim for fees. 

DATED: January 7, 2018 

Respectfully Submitted: 

~~MICHAEL ~-·-J. KURGAN 

6538 Collins Avenue 

Unit 288 

Miami Beach, FL 3 3141 

E-Mail mike@servicewing.com 

REPLY TO REQUEST FOR FEES 
I 

l 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by means of US mail and email 

on: 

Motschenbacher & blattner, llp 

Nicholar J. Henderson 

117 SW Taylor Street 

Suite 300 

Portland, Oregon 97204-3029 

Fax 503-417-0501 

Dated: January 7, 2018 

4 REPLY TO REQUEST FOR FEES