(Eagle.petrofsky.org: Home; Trial court case; First appeal; Second appeal; Bankruptcy)

EAGLE BROADBAND v. MOULD (H030719)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Case No. H030719, notice of appeal filed October 6, 2006.

EAGLE BROADBAND, INC.,

Plaintiff and appellant,

vs.

THOMAS MOULD,

Defendant and respondent.


This web page is a compilation of information from the web site of the court, with the addition of electronic copies of many of the filed documents that the court does not make available electronically. For more information, see the Eagle.petrofsky.org home page.

This page could very well be out of date at the time you are reading it. For current docket information, please follow this link to the court web site:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/searchResults.cfm?search=number&dist=6&query_caseNumber=H030719

Selected Rulings

Filed 2007-04-09: "BY THE COURT: The motion to seal records is granted in part. ..." (2 pages)
Seals parts of the record that relate to confidential settlement negotiations, and refuses to seal the part of a declaration by Eagle's lead counsel (Karineh Khachatourian) that made this disclosure: "As of May 22, 2006, Eagle Broadband has spent $77,198.12 in costs and fees for the prosecution of its claims against all the DOE Defendants."
Filed 2007-12-14: Opinion (11 pages)
Affirms the trial court's $66,451.68 fees and costs award to Mould.


6th Appellate District (link to court's page)


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Case Summary (link to court's page)

Trial Court Case: CV050179
Court of Appeal Case: H030719
Division:
Case Caption: Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Type:
Filing Date: 10/06/2006
Oral Argument Date/Time: 09/20/2007   01:30 PM   (Audio recording and partial transcript)

Cross Referenced Cases

No Cross Referenced Cases Found


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Docket (Register of Actions) (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Date Description Notes
10/13/2006 Notice of appeal lodged/received. Eagle Broadband filed 10/13/06

"NOTICE OF APPEAL ..."
(Rule 1(f)(1) notice to appellant)
10/13/2006 Notice per rule 5.1 - with reporter's transcript. filed 10/6/06
10/20/2006 Civil case information statement filed. By appellant

"CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT"
10/24/2006 Default appellant; no certificate of interested persons filed. applnt's

(Rule 14.5(c)(2) notice to appellant)
11/02/2006 Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: Appellant

"CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS"
11/09/2006 Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8(a)(1). Ntce to applt dtd 11/2/06 for flre to post fees for RT
11/09/2006 Received document entitled: Notice of compliance re dflt ntce issued 11/2/06
11/09/2006 Notice to reporter to prepare transcript. Ctrr Schuler ntfd on 11/6/06 to prpre RT of 8/8/06

"Dear Court Reporter: ..."
11/29/2006 Notice of completion of transcripts received/filed. Re reporter's tx on appeal

"Dear Counsel: ..."
11/29/2006 Reporter's transcript filed. R-1 (Procs of 8/8/06 by ctrr Schuler)

"REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS"
12/22/2006 Substitution of attorneys filed for: Applt Eagle Broadband; Gordon & Rees are substituted out as cnsl for applt Eagle Broadband; Jeffrey Ratinoff & Karineh Khachatourian & the Law Offices of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP are substituted in place of Gordon & Rees LLP

"NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL"
12/28/2006 Filed proof of service. re sub of atty for sup crt
01/04/2007 Telephone conversation with: Sec to atty Ratnof she states they will turn in brief next week.
01/04/2007 Appellant notified pursuant to rule 8.220(a)(1).

(Notice to appellant)
04/09/2007 Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed. Prvs event entry was "AOB filed" (Public redacted version) deleted bcuz crt ordrd flng of AOB strckn on 4/9/07 (see order-event #350)

"APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION"
01/18/2007 Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed. Previous event entry was "Appellant's appendix filed-deleted bcuz crt ordrd filing of appendix stricken on 4/9/07 (see order-event #350)

"APPELLANT'S APPENDIX" (exhibits omitted)
01/18/2007 Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed. Previous event entry was "Received document entitled sealed vol V of applt's appndx (stricken per crt's order on 4/9/07-see event #350)
01/18/2007 Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed. Previous event entry was "Received document entitled Applt's opening brief conditionally lodged under seal"-deleted bcuz crt ordrd AOB strckn & rtrnd to applt on 4/9/07 (see order-event #350)
01/18/2007 Application filed to: By applt to file documents under seal (TCT for order)

"EAGLE BROADBAND, INC.'S APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY M. RATINOFF IN SUPPORT THEREOF"
02/02/2007 Opposition filed. By respondent to applt's applcn to file dcmnts under seal (TCT)

"RESPONDENT MOULD'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF PAUL CLIFFORD" (exhibits omitted)
02/16/2007 Granted - extension of time. (1)

"[Granted] APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF; DECLARATION OF PAUL CLIFFORD"
04/09/2007 Order filed. The motion to seal records is granted in part. The motion is granted only as to those documents which were sealed by the trial court. Those documents include: 1)Paragraph 7-9 of the Khachatourian declaration;2)Exhibits G & H of that declaration;3)Any portion of the Opposition or Reply to the Motion for attorney's fees and costs making reference to the above referenced information; and 4)Any portion of the Opening brief quoting or paraphrasing the above referenced information. The court finds that Eagle has shown that (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; that (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550, subd. (d).) The parties entered into a Settlement Negotiation Agreement which contained a confidentiality clause. The purpose of the confidentiality clause was to encourage settlement by protecting information provided for the purposes of facilitating settlement. When negotiations failed, the parties sought to file information relating to settlement in support of and in opposition to the motion for attorney's fees and costs. The trial court allowed certain portions of the record to be filed under seal, finding that it was information protected by the parties' confidentiality clause. The trial court refused to seal information relating to Eagle's attorney's fees and costs. The court finds that there exists an overriding interest in protecting information subject to the confidentiality clause where the purpose of the clause is to facilitate settlement between the parties. The court further finds that revealing such information would prejudice parties' willingness to engage in frank and open settlement negotiations. The order sealing the record is limited only to those portions of the record specifically identified as information about negotiations which is subject to the confidentiality clause. Finally, the court finds that no less restrictive means exists to protect this confidential information, other than sealing that portion of the record and briefs which contain or reference this information. The motion is denied as to those documents relating to Eagle's attorney's fees and costs. Specifically: 1)Parts of paragraph 6 (total Eagle has spent in costs and fees in this action; 2)Excerpts from Eagle's opposition to Mould's motion for fees which cites the total amount Eagle has spent in costs and fees;3) Excerpts from reply brief filed by Mould which cites Eagle's costs and fees; and 4) Excerpts in Eagle's opening brief that quote or paraphrase this same information. The court finds that there is no overriding interest in protecting Eagle's expenditures on legal fees and costs which overcomes the right of public access to the record. The clerk of this court is directed to strike the filing of appellant's opening brief and appendix in lieu of clerk's transcript on appeal filed on January 18, 2007. Counsel for appellant or his representative may retrieve said brief and appendix from the clerk's office within 10 days from the date of this order so that said party may be able to provide a redacted version which complies with this order. The newly redacted record and opening brief shall be due within 15 days from the date that the brief and appendix are retrieved from the clerk's office or if not retrieved, within 15 days from the expiration of the 10-day period to retrieve said brief and appendix, whichever period comes first. Time for filing of respondent's brief is extended to 15 days from the date that the redacted record and opening brief are filed in this court. (CLR)

"BY THE COURT: ..." (signed by Conrad L. Rushing, Presiding Justice)
04/17/2007 Note: AOB and appendix retrieved from the clerk's office by cnsl for applt's courier this day
05/03/2007 Appellant's opening brief. Note: Public Redacted Version (Original & 4 copies)

"APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF - PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION (RE-FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APRIL 9, 2007 ORDER OF THE COURT)"
05/03/2007 Appellant's appendix filed. 5 volumes (Note: Volume V is filed under seal per court's 4/9/07 order)

"APPELLANT'S APPENDIX (RE-FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APRIL 9, 2007 ORDER OF THE COURT)" (exhibits omitted)
(Most of the exhibits can be found on the trial court page. Exhibit 25, "DECLARATION OF KARINEH KHACHATOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DOE 5'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES (C.C.P. § 425.16(C)) (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)" has fewer redactions than does the version publicly filed in the trial court.)
05/03/2007 Sealed document filed********* Original & 4 copies of AOB (Filed under seal per court's 4/9/07 order)
05/03/2007 Sealed document filed********* Volume V of appellant's appendix filed under seal per court's 4/9/07 order)
05/21/2007 Respondent notified pursuant to rule 8.220(a)(2).

(Notice to respondent)
05/23/2007 Respondent's brief.

"RESPONDENT'S BRIEF"
05/23/2007 Respondent's appendix filed. 2 volumes

"RESPONDENT'S APPENDIX" (exhibits omitted) (most of the exhibits can be found on the trial court page)
05/23/2007 Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: Respondent (See RBF)
06/12/2007 Appellant's reply brief.

"APPELLANT EAGLE BROADBAND INC.'S REPLY BRIEF"
06/12/2007 Case fully briefed.
06/29/2007 Case on conference list. July 5, 2007 Conference List
07/20/2007 Oral argument waiver notice sent.

(Oral Argument Waiver Notice)
07/25/2007 Request for oral argument filed by: atty Khachatourian obo applnt (pa)

"REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT"
07/26/2007 Request for oral argument filed by: atty Goldowitz obo respondent (pa)

"REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT"
08/10/2007 Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.

(Calendar Notice)
(September 2007 Calendar)
09/05/2007 Received document entitled: Additional case cite from rspdt Mould & applt Williams (TCT for permission to file)
09/07/2007 Filed: Eagle Broadband's ltr objctng to Mould's & Willimas' rqsts for lve to refer to add'tl leag authority during orl argmnt (TCT)

"On behalf of ... Eagle ..., we hereby object ..." (letter dated September 6, 2007)
09/10/2007 Filed additional cites for oral argument. Rspdt Mould's & applt Williams add'tl case cites for oral argument (Permission to file grtd this day-TCT)

"PERMISSION TO FILE GRANTED" (initialed by Richard J. McAdams, Acting Presiding Justice) (letter dated August 31, 2007)
09/20/2007 Cause argued and submitted.
(Audio recording and partial transcript)
(Minutes for week of September 17 through September 21)
10/09/2007 Received: Rspdt Mould's post argument add'tl case cite (TCT for permission to file or order)

"PERMISSION TO FILE Denied" (initialed by Richard J. McAdams, Acting Presiding Justice) (letter dated October 5, 2007)
10/15/2007 Letter sent to: Atty Goldowitz from California Anti-Slapp Project re court denied permission to file letter re additional cite dated 10/5/07 (and returning letter)

"The court denied permission to file your letter dated October 5, 2007"
12/14/2007 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished) Trial court's order of August 9, 2006, is affirmed (see opinion); RJM, NDM & WCD

(Opinion) (signed by Richard J. McAdams, Justice)
12/17/2007 Filed document entitled: Eagle Broadband Inc's Suggestion of Bankruptcy (TCT)

"EAGLE BROADBAND, INC.'S SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY"
01/15/2008 Filed document entitled: Mould's response to Eagle's suggestion of Bankruptcy (TCT)
01/23/2008 Filed document entitled: Eagle's Broadband's response to Mould's rqst for issuance of rmttr (TCT)


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Future Scheduled Actions (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Description Due Date Notes
Remittitur issued. 02/13/2008


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Briefs (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Brief Due Date Date Filed Party and
Attorney
Notes
Appellant notified pursuant to rule 8.220(a)(1).   01/04/2007 Plaintiff and Appellant: Eagle Broadband, Inc.

Attorney: Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff
Attorney: Karineh Khachatourian  


(Notice to appellant)  
Appellant's opening brief.   05/03/2007 Plaintiff and Appellant: Eagle Broadband, Inc.

Attorney: Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff
Attorney: Karineh Khachatourian  
Note: Public Redacted Version (Original & 4 copies)

"APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF - PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION (RE-FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APRIL 9, 2007 ORDER OF THE COURT)" (6,992 words)  
Respondent notified pursuant to rule 8.220(a)(2).   05/21/2007 Defendant and Respondent: Mould, Thomas

Attorney: Mark Goldowitz  


(Notice to respondent)  
Respondent's brief.   05/23/2007 Defendant and Respondent: Mould, Thomas

Attorney: Mark Goldowitz  


"RESPONDENT'S BRIEF" (9,121 words)  
Appellant's reply brief.   06/12/2007 Plaintiff and Appellant: Eagle Broadband, Inc.

Attorney: Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff
Attorney: Karineh Khachatourian  


"APPELLANT EAGLE BROADBAND INC.'S REPLY BRIEF" (1,528 words)  

Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Disposition (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Description: Affirmed in full
Date: 12/14/2007
Status: Final
Trial court's order of August 9, 2006, is affirmed (see opinion); RJM, NDM & WCD
Publication Status: Signed Unpublished

(Opinion)
Author: McAdams, Richard  
Participants: Mihara, Nathan (Concur) 
Duffy, Wendy (Concur) 
Case Citation:


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Parties and Attorneys (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Party Attorney
Mould, Thomas : Defendant and Respondent

Mark Goldowitz
California Anti-SLAPP Project
2903 Sacramento Street
Berkeley, CA 94702

Mould, Thomas : Defendant and Respondent

Karineh Khachatourian
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood City, CA 94065

Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood City, CA 94065


Court data last updated: 01/24/2008 01:05 PM

Trial Court (link to court's page)

Eagle Broadband, Inc. v. Mould
Case Number H030719

Trial Court Name: Santa Clara County Superior Court
County: Santa Clara
Trial Court Case Number: CV050179
Trial Court Judge: Elfving, William
Trial Court Judgment Date: 08/09/2006


RCS revision tag: $Id: appeal2.html,v 1.72 2008/01/24 21:56:10 al Exp $