FUCKING LOL! I don't even need to read beyond the tables of contents and I know this is going to be comedy gold.
I have neither the time nor the booze to go through all their crap again, and after seeing that I don't have the inclination either.
The only marginally interesting bits are from the cross-appeal. Picked from among other whining:
Isn't that a lie? I thought MoRon did
not answer discovery, and BHBC had a motion to compel on the table when the whole TCPA thing happened.
Besides which, these fuckers were the ones who waited until after the depos, because the only "proof" they had of anything were scraps they twisted and mis-interpreted from Vic's depo.
Some more lies:
Except plaintiff
did not argue that the rates of Beard and Bullock should be applied. From the plaintiff's response to MoRonica's fees request:
"Plaintiff’s lead counsel, Ty Beard, and Jim Bullock have been licensed to practice law for twenty-three (23) years and bill at a rate of $400 and $350 per hour respectively. Mr. Bullock maintains an office in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, therefore his rate is indicative of a reasonable hourly rate in Dallas/ Fort Worth... Neither Mills nor Hellberg are a named partner in this law firm like both Mr. Beard and Mr. Bullock, yet both bill at a rate of $650.00 per hour. Comparing the billing rates, this clearly demonstrates that the billing rate used by Defendants’ counsel are excessive."
That's not an argument for using their rates, that's an argument that (1) their rates are indicative of "reasonable hourly rates" in the relevant county, and (2)
by comparison the requested defense rates are excessive. Nowhere did they suggest that the court should "apply the rates" from BHBC to the Defense's listed hours, and Beard/Bullock don't need to take the stand to repeat the justification already listed in the brief if Lemoine didn't challenge it in the hearing.
BHBC doesn't need to defend their rates, the defense does; and they tried at the hearing, when Chupp saw through it.
Lemoine finally does get around to some actual legal argumentation trying to claim that a winning defense on TCPA is supposed to get whatever they ask for;
of course he only wakes up and puts in effort when it comes to getting paid, not when telling the truth about anything else. Maybe he cited an extra case in here, I can't be bothered to track, but substantively nothing looks new from what he argued in court and in his love letters to Chupp.
