Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592 Filed03/05/15 Page1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. (pro hac vice) FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-8400 Fax: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: [email protected] CO-LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL AND SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL Lynn Lincoln Sarko (pro hac vice) Gretchen Freeman Cappio (pro hac vice) KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] *Additional Plaintiff’s Counsel on signature page 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY ) Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW) SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and all others ) ) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. BRAUN similarly situated, ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ) ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND CLASS Plaintiffs, ) REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD AND ) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF vs. ) SETTLEMENT ) ) Honorable Ronald M. Whyte FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT ) (a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC), ) Date: April 24, 2015 a Delaware limited liability company, ) Time: 9:00 a.m. ) Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration of Michael D. Braun in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement; Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592 Filed03/05/15 Page2 of 4 1 I, Michael D. Braun, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a principal with the Braun Law Group, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff Felton A. Spears, 3 Jr. in the above captioned action. I am a member of the California Bar and am admitted to practice in 4 this District. 5 6 7 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees; Costs and Class Representative Service Award. 3. I was admitted to the California Bar in 1993, the District of Columbia Bar in 1996, the 8 New York Bar in 1999 and the Bar of England and Wales in 2006. I am a member in good standing of 9 these bars. 10 11 12 4. I received a Bachelor in Arts degree from the University of California Los Angeles, a Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School and a Master of Laws from the London School of Economics. 5. I have been employed as a lawyer since graduating and have been in practice for more 13 than 20 years. My entire legal career has been spent as a Plaintiff’s attorney prosecuting complex and 14 class action litigation. I began as an associate with Stull Stull & Brody (“SSB”), a boutique class action 15 firm specializing in the prosecution of securities class actions. I spent approximately 10 years with 16 SSB, the last four of which I was the managing attorney of the Los Angeles office which had four 17 attorneys, two secretaries, a paralegal and assorted clerical staff. In 2004, I left SSB to start the Braun 18 Law Group, where I have been since. My practice remains exclusively the prosecution of class actions. 19 6. Over my career, I have served as lead or liaison counsel in well over a hundred cases. I 20 have been named Super Lawyer by my peers in Los Angeles Magazine every year since 2005. I was 21 also fortunate enough to be named a named Lawyer of the Year (“Clay Award”) in 2000 by California 22 Lawyer Magazine for my work on Small v. Fritz Co., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (April 7, 2003). 23 7. I specialize in the prosecution of class litigation and have extensive experience in 24 consumer class action lawsuits that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the present case. A 25 copy of my firm’s resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 26 27 28 8. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B is a summary of the time expended on this litigation by my firm from inception through February 19, 2015. The total number of hours spent by 2 Declaration of Michael D. Braun in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement; Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592 Filed03/05/15 Page3 of 4 1 my firm prosecuting this action is 5,940.37. The total lodestar to date for my firm is $2,779,603.50. 2 My hourly rate is $675 per hour. My associate Chelsea Maehara is a first year attorney and her hourly 3 rate is $240. The schedule was prepared from contemporaneous, daily time records prepared and 4 maintained by my firm. The hourly rates are the same as the usual and customary hourly rates charged 5 for services in other actions. 6 9. Attached to declaration as Exhibit C is a summary of expenses incurred in the 7 prosecution of this matter totaling $52,021.02. The summary was prepared from records prepared and 8 maintained by my firm. 9 10. My hourly rate reflects my skill and experience as a litigator and is commensurate with 10 the rates charged for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and 11 reputation in this District. 12 11. In assessing a reasonable hourly rate, courts consider the prevailing market rate in the 13 community for similar services by lawyers of reasonable comparable skill, experience, and reputation. 14 Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 and fn. 11 (1984). The 15 relevant community for purposes of determining the prevailing market rate is generally the “forum in 16 which the district court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). 17 “Affidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, 18 and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are 19 satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge 20 Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1140 (Cal. 2001). 21 12. As detailed above, my practice is dedicated to the prosecution of class actions. The 22 majority of my cases are litigated in California, primarily in the Central and Northern Districts. My 23 hourly rates have been routinely approved in both districts. See e.g., In re Indymac ERISA Litigation, 24 (CDCA) CV 08-04579 DDP (VBKx), Final Order & Judgment, (Dkt. No. 137); Eisenstat v. Ken's 25 Foods, Inc., (CDCA) 1 0-CV -0251 0-SVW (PLAx), Final Order Approving Settlement & Judgment of 26 Dismissal With Prejudice, (Dkt. No. 37); Wool v Sitrick, (CDCA) 10-CV-02741 JHN (PJWx), Order 27 Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's fees and Expenses, (Dkt. No. 160); In Re Cooper 3 28 Declaration of Michael D. Braun in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement; Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592 Filed03/05/15 Page4 of 4 1 Companies Derivative Litig., (CDCA) CV 06 00300 CJC (RNB), (Dkt. No. 110); In re Google Buzz 2 Privacy Litigation, (NDCA) 10-CV-00672 JW, Amended Order Granting Final Approval of Class 3 Action Settlement; Approval of Cy Pres Awards; and Awarding Attorney Fees, (Dkt. No. 129). 4 13. In demonstrating the reasonableness of hourly rates, it is also appropriate to submit the 5 affidavits of practitioners from the same forum with similar experience to establish the reasonableness 6 of the hourly rate sought. Mendenhall v. Nat'! Transp. Safety Bd., 213 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2000) 7 (holding that affidavits of four practitioners in the community were sufficient to establish reasonable 8 rate). Each of the following cases affirmed fee awards commensurate with the hourly rates sought in 9 this case. The declarations submitted by each of the practitioners similarly refer to additional cases and 10 support for the hourly rates. See e.g. Sugarman v. Ducati N. Am., Inc., Case No. 5:10-cv-05246, 2012 11 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3961 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2012) (Dkt. No. 81, Declaration of Eric Gibbs); Milano v. 12 Interstate Battery Sys. of Am., Inc., Case No. C 10-02125 , 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93192 (N.D. Cal. 13 July 5, 2012)(Dkt. No. 101); Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, Case No. 06-cv-05778 JCS, 2011 14 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38667 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011)(Dkt. Nos. 876 and 877, Declarations of James 15 Finberg and Jonathan Gertler, respectively); Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Service, Case No. 3:12-cv- 16 01118-JSW, Dkt No. 64-1 (Approving $725 for 1993 graduate); Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare, Case 17 No. No. C 11-00050 JSW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1 7 6319, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013 )(Exhibit J, 18 Declaration of Richard M. Pearl opining on current and historical billable rates). 19 20 21 22 23 14. In light of my experience and knowledge of the facts of this case, it is my belief that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate given the risks of trial and EA’s insolvency. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of March, 2015, Los Angeles, California. 24 25 s/Michael D. Braun Michael D. Braun 26 27 28 4 Declaration of Michael D. Braun in Support of Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement; Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-1 Filed03/05/15 Page1 of 5 EXHIBIT A Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-1 Filed03/05/15 Page2 of 5 10680 W. Pico Boulevard, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064-7202 Tel 310-836-6000 Fax 310-836-6010 [email protected] FIRM BIOGRAPHY The Braun Law Group, P.C. was founded in 2004 and specializes in the prosecution of complex class actions across a variety of legal disciplines throughout the United States. MICHAEL D. BRAUN Mr. Braun has represented shareholders and consumers in class action litigation for the past 19 years and has served as lead or liaison counsel in well over a hundred cases. He was named Lawyer of the Year in 2000 by California Lawyer Magazine, and a Super Lawyer from 2005-2015 by Los Angeles Magazine. Mr. Braun is a graduate of the London School of Economics, Loyola Law School, the Hague Academy of International Law and the University of California at Los Angeles. Mr. Braun is a member of the California, New York and District of Columbia bars, and is also licensed as an English Solicitor. REPRESENTATIVE SECURITIES CASES Small v. Fritz Co., Supreme Court of California, 30 Cal. 4th 167 (April 7, 2003) (created new law in the state of California for shareholders that held shares in detrimental reliance on false statements made by corporate officers. The decision was widely covered by national media including The National Law Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the New York Law Journal, among others and was heralded as a significant victory for shareholders. In re Apria Healthcare Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. 797060 (Superior Court of California, Orange County) (recovery of $42 million) In re Complete Management Inc. Sec. Litig., Master File No. 99 Civ. 1454 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.) (recovery of $11.0 million) In re Cybermedia, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98-1811CBM (Ex) (C.D. Ca.) (recovery of $10.5 million) In re Stratosphere Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-S-96-00708-PMP (RLH) (D. Nev.) (recovery of $9 million)In re Ascend Communications Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-9376 MRP (AN) (C.D. Ca. 2002) (recovery of $5.45 million) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-1 Filed03/05/15 Page3 of 5 PAGE 2 In re Brightpoint Securities Litigation,(S.D. Indiana 2003) (recovery of $5.5 million) In re Spectrian Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-97-4672-CW (N.D. Ca.) (recovery of $2.975 million) In re 2TheMart.com Securities Litigation, 114 F.Supp 2d 955 (C.D.Ca. 2002) (recovery of $3.0 million) In re Irvine Sensors Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (C.D.Ca. 2003) (recovery of $3.5 million) In re Metris Companies Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-CV-3677 (D. Minn)(recovery $7.5 million) REPRESENTATIVE CONSUMER CASES Outten, et al v. American InterContinental University, Inc., Case No. BC318199 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2004) Stransky v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. BC319261 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2004) Harrell v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Case No. (Los Angeles Superior Court 2004) Nilsen, et al. v. Brooks Institute of Photography, et al., Case No. 1165597 (Santa Barbara Superior Court 2005) Thurston, et al. v. Brooks College, Ltd., Case No. NC036756 (Los Angeles County Superior Court 2005) Goyette, et al. v. Capital One Bank, et al., Case No. CV 05-3458 RGK (CDCA 2005) Frey v. Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Americas, Inc., Case No. CV05-5216 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2005) Schafer v. Dell Inc., Case No. CGC-06-457335 (San Francisco Superior Court 2006) Vizzi v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. SACV 08-650 JVS (C.D. Cal 2010) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-1 Filed03/05/15 Page4 of 5 PAGE 3 Baker V. Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Case No. BC 409505 (Los Angeles County Superior Court 2010) Eisenstat v. Ken’s Foods. Inc., Case No. CV 10-2510 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2010) Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., Case No. CV 10-1192 (N.D. Cal. 2011) Vought v. Bank of America, Case No. 2:10-cv-02052-MPM-DGB (C.D. Ill. 2010) Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co. Case No. CV-11-5188-SI (N.D. Cal. 2011) Thurston v. Bear Naked Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02890-H (BGS) (S.D. Cal. 2011) Astiana v Kashi Co., Case No. 11-cv-1967-H (BGS) (S.D. Cal 2011) NOTEWORTHY REPORTED DECISIONS Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177058, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013) Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151490, (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) Ubaldi v. SLM Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109877, 1, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) Larsen v. Trader Joe's Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3602 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013) Colucci v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183050 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Astiana v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101371 (N.D. Cal 2012) Spears v. First Am. Eappraiseit, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58077 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60608 (N.D. Cal. 2011) Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57348 (N.D. Cal. 2011) Barrer v. Chase Bank, USA, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1111 (D. Or. 2011) Vought v. Bank of Am., NA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114159 (C.D. Ill. 2010) Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141941 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Barrer v. Chase Bank United States, N.A., 566 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. Or. 2009) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-1 Filed03/05/15 Page5 of 5 PAGE 4 Baghdasarian v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 383 (C.D. Cal. 2009) Daghlian v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (C.D. Cal. 2006) In re Irvine Sensors Corp. Secs. Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (C.D. Cal. 2003) Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (Cal. 2003) In re Complete Mgmt. Sec. Litig., 153 F. Supp. 2d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955 (C.D. Cal. 2000) Sakhrani v. Brightpoint, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 845 (S.D. Ind. 1999) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-2 Filed03/05/15 Page1 of 4 EXHIBIT B Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-2 Filed03/05/15 Page2 of 4 Braun Law Group Hours Phase of Litigation (Mo/Yr to Mo/Yr) And Citation to Brief in Support of Motion For Attorney’s Fees and Costs Discussing Phase Pre-Complaint Phase (¶II(A)) - (11/07 to 02/08) Pre-Complaint Investigation and Initial Pleadings Preparation. Plaintiffs’ Counsel The Braun Law Group Firm Time M. Braun - 25.86 L. Molinar - 27.0 Firm Total Hrs. – 52.86 First Motions to Dismiss Phase (¶II(A)) - (03/08 to 03/09) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); Motions to Dismiss FAC; Motions to Transfer; Plaintiffs’ Motions to Stay and for Jurisdictional Discovery; One Set of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents. M. Braun - 58.78 L. Molinar - 10.45 Firm Total Hrs. – 69.23 Second Motions to Dismiss Phase (¶II(A)) - (04/09 to 08/09) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”); Motions to Dismiss SAC. M. Braun - 59.68 Firm Total Hrs. – 59.68 First Class Certification Motion Phase (¶II(B)) - (09/09 to 06/10) Exchange of Approximately 4.7 Million Pages of Documents and Ongoing Document Review; Named Plaintiffs’ Depositions; EA’s Motion for Interlocutory Appeal; Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Certify Class; Two Sets of EA’s Requests for Production of Documents and Three Sets of EA’s Interrogatories. M. Braun - 407.22 A. Azarmsa – 71.50 B. Chang – 74.00 C. Peters – 71.50 A. Toumajan – 74.00 Firm Total Hrs. – 698.22 Second Class Certification Motion Phase (¶II(B)) - (07/10 to 04/12) Production of Approximately 20,000 Pages of Documents (Including Expert Discovery) and Ongoing Document Review; Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Certify Class; Five Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Expert Reports and One EA Class Certification Expert Report; Class-Related Expert Discovery; Depositions of Two Plaintiffs’ Experts and One EA M. Braun - 322.90 Firm Total Hrs. – 322.90 Table of BLG Hours - Spears, et al. v. First American eAppraiseIT, Case No. 08-0868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-2 Filed03/05/15 Page3 of 4 Braun Law Group Hours Expert; Two Sets of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production and One Set of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories; Two Sets of EA’s Interrogatories. Merits Discovery Phase I (¶II(C)) - (05/12 to 5/13) Production of Approximately 3,000 Pages of Documents and Ongoing Document Review; EA’s Motion to File Third Party Complaint Against FDIC; Plaintiffs’ and EA’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings; Subpoenas Served on Seven Third Parties; One Set of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents and Two Sets of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission; Three Sets of EA’s Requests for Production of Documents, One Set of EA’s Requests for Admission and Three Sets of EA’s Interrogatories. M. Braun – 119.28 B. Halen - 514.00 E. Rabenold - 346.50 Firm Total Hrs. – 979.28 Merits Discovery Phase II (¶II(D)) - (06/13 to 12/13) Production of Approximately 412,000 Pages of Documents Including Chase’s Production of Loan Files and Spreadsheets and Ongoing Document Review; Depositions of 19 EA and WMB Executives, Employees and Former Employees; Depositions of Three Third Parties; Additional Discovery of Third Party Chase; Two Sets of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production and One Set of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories; Plaintiffs’ and EA’s Supplemental Discovery Responses and Disclosures. M. Braun – 128.45 Y. Francus - 352.15 B. Halen - 389.15 E. Rabenold - 220.25 Firm Total Hrs. – 1,090 Expert Discovery Phase I (¶II(E)) - (01/14 to 05/14) Production of Approximately 2,700 Pages of Documents Including Chase Spreadsheets and Expert Discovery and Ongoing Document Review; Trial Expert Reports, Supplemental Reports and Expert Discovery from 12 Plaintiffs’ Experts; One Set of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents From EA’s Experts; EA’s Formal and Informal Requests for Expert Discovery. M. Braun - 115.50 Y. Francus - 92.25 B. Halen - 311.50 E. Rabenold - 207.80 Firm Total Hrs. – 727.05 Table of BLG Hours - Spears, et al. v. First American eAppraiseIT, Case No. 08-0868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-2 Filed03/05/15 Page4 of 4 Braun Law Group Hours Dispositive Motions and Expert Discovery Phase II (¶II(E-F)) – (06/14 to 09/14) Motions for Summary Judgment, EA’s Motion to Decertify Class, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate; Production of Approximately 35,000 Documents Including Expert Discovery and EA’s Production From FDIC Action; EA’s Motion to Strike Expert Reports; Trial Expert Reports and Supplemental Reports of Six EA Experts; Expert Discovery and Depositions of 12 Plaintiffs’ Experts and 6 EA’s Experts. M. Braun - 659.00 C. Maehara – 180 Y. Francus - 236.15 B. Halen - 230.25 E. Rabenold - 114.50 Firm Total Hrs. – 1,419.9 Trial Preparation and Settlement (¶II(G and H)) - (10/14 to 10/14) Plaintiffs’ 18 Motions in Limine, and EA’s 11 Motions in Limine; Deposition and Discovery Designations, Witness Lists, Stipulated Facts, Jury Instructions and Joint Pretrial Statement; Two Mediations M. Braun - 262.00 C. Maehara – 180 Y. Francus 21.75 B. Halen 26.50 E. Rabenold 20.50 Firm Total Hrs. – 510.75 Post-Settlement Phase I - (Actual 11/14 to 02/15) Motion for Preliminary Approval; Chase Discovery Cost Dispute; Settlement Administration; Motion for Final Approval. M. Braun - 10.0 Firm Total Hrs. – 10 Post-Settlement Phase II - (Estimated 03/15 to Conclusion) Final Settlement Administration. Firm Total Hrs. – 0 BLG TOTAL HOURS - 5,940.37 Table of BLG Hours - Spears, et al. v. First American eAppraiseIT, Case No. 08-0868 (RMW) Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-3 Filed03/05/15 Page1 of 2 EXHIBIT C Case5:08-cv-00868-RMW Document592-3 Filed03/05/15 Page2 of 2 MIKE BRAUN EXPENSE SUMMARY Description Amount Attorney Service $2,144.04 Computer $406.58 Copy/Print $4,283.02 Expert $827.70 Filing / Court Fees $46.00 Investigation $7.84 Lexis $30,178.86 Other $2,798.82 Overnight Service $1,216.26 Pacer $140.36 Parking $215.25 Postage $167.74 Rental $467.67 Sundries $16.56 Transportation $262.89 Travel - Airline $6,196.46 Travel - Food $835.14 Travel - Hotel $1,546.58 Travel -Taxi $263.25 TOTAL $52,021.02 1 2/27/2015
© Copyright 2024