Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IIIII
]11
fllll
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIII
IIII
IIII IZI
III
CA2DB241675-06
{A8187BC7-1135-4F4A-894A-92C4C6EB2ECA}
{145490}
{30-131223:141852}
{122013}
RESPONDENT'S
BRIEF
Case
No. B241675
IN THE
COURT
OF APPEAL
SECOND
OF THE
APPELLATE
DIVISION
STEPHEN
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT
EIGHT
M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff
and Appellant,
VS.
KNAPP,
PETERSEN
STEPHEN
& CLARKE;
M. HARRIS;
Defendants
PACIFIC
511 OFW
COAST
RAY
GARCLA;
JARDINI,
and Respondents.
MANAGEMENT,
LP; MALIBU
STEVEN
and ANDRE
INC.;
GINGERBREAD
BROADBEACH
LP; MARINA
COURT
GLENCOE
BLU HOUSE
LLC; BOARDWALK
SUNSET
LLC; and JOSEPH
PRASKE
as Trustee of THE GIGANIN
TRUST, THE ARENZANO
TRUST,
Additional
Appeal
Judgment
FOUNDATION
Debtors
and Appellants.
Robert
L. Hess,
RESPONDENTS'
Randall
Steven
515 South
A. Miller
Flower
Telephone:
Facsimile:
for
Judge
BRIEF
(SBN
116036)
Los Angeles,
Attorneys
Superior
Street,
CA
Suite
2150
90071-2201
800.720.2126
888.749.5812
Defendants
and Respondents
Court
LP;
LP;
OF APPEAL,
A'i-rORNEY
--
OR
PARTY
RANDALL
Miller
LLP
Second
WITHOUT
ATTORNE_
A. MILLER
515
S. Flower
Los
Angeles,
Street,
APPELLATE
(Narr_,
(SBN
Suite
California
Bar ,'_rc,
116036),
DLSTRICT,
er. a_d
STEVEN
APP-008
Eight
DIVISION
c_. = _
c..,
_._o_
B241675
eddre_J:
S. WANG
(SBN
184979)
BC286925
2150
FOR
COU_T
USE
ONL Y
90071
r_t_.E.o_
213-496-6400
FAXNO.g_,.._j:
E-M,_L_ORESS
(_n=.0: steven @mi]lerUp.com
ArrO_YFOR_.,,_:Knapp, Petersen, Clarke, et al.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:Stephen
M. Gaggero
RESPONDENT/REAL
PARTYININTEREST:Knapp,
CERTIFICATE
(Check
one):
Notice:
INITIAL
Please
certificate
motion
OF
read
or application
1. This
form
2, a. _
There
b, _
tn the
form
is being
8.208
when
as
file
Court
a supplemental
submitted
on behalf
are no interested
Interested
and
you
entities
entities
or persons
Clarke,
ENTITLES
CERTIFICATE
rules
in an appeal
INTERESTED
Petersen,
r7
8.488
brief
of Appeal,
certificate
of the following
required
CERTIFICATE
completing
this
or a prebdeflng
and
or persons
PERSONS
SUPPLEMENTAL
before
your
OR
ct al.
when
when
psrly
you
file
learn
(name):
that must
to be listed
you
You
may
use
application,
a petition
for
of changed
this
or
In this certificate
rule 8.208
form
or additional
under
for
opposition
an extraordinary
be listed
under
form.
motion,
writ.
information
the
Initial
to such
You
may
that
must
etal.
rule 8.208.
are as follows:
Full entity
name or
of person
Interested
II
Nature
of Interest
(Explain):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Continued
The
undersigned
on attachment
certifies
that
2.
the above-listed
persons
or entitles
(corporations,
partnerships,
firms,
or any other
assoc_stion,
but not including
government
entitles
or their agencies)
have either (1) an ownership
Interest
of 10 percent
more In the party If It is an entity;
or (2) a financial
or other interest in the outcome
of the proceeding
that the Justices
should
consider
in determining
whether
to disqualify
themselves,
as defined
In rule 8.208(e)(2).
December
Date:
Steven
or
19, 2013
S. Wang, Esq.
(WPE OR PPJNTNAME)
_
Judicial
_,-_
CO_7O7
u,,,
of C,._a
APP-O0S
{Ray,Januaryt. 2009]
CERTIFICATE
OF INTERESTED
ENTITLES OR PERSONS
_. _,_
c_ ._ 8.,_.a,_a
www. ,_n_ka_
ca,gay
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
FACTUAL
1.
...........................................................................................
AND
PROCEDURAL
Legal
Underlying
A.
Concluded
of Damages
2.
Judgment
in Favor
3.
Gaggero's
"Estate
A.
Overview
B.
Individuals
C.
Assets
KPC's
A.
5.
in Gaggero's
ARGUMENT
to Prove His
Fees Against
Gaggero
KPC ................
...........
:................
Refusal
Questions
of Privacy
Refusal
Plan,
of Order
Granting
Information
Including
Privacy
Granting
KPC's
Trust
and Privilege
Motion
the Motion
10
.... 10
or Documents
Documents,
on
.........................
12
to Amend
Judgment
and Amending
the
.........................................................................
.................................................................................................
10
Ego
........................................................................................
OF REVIEW
Privilege
to the Estate
and Attorney-Client
to Provide
of Relevancy,
Relating
...................................................
to Answer
Plan ................................................
Discovery.
to His Estate
Judgment
to
Estate
Grounds
Entry
Plan.". ..................................................................
Relating
7.
......................................
Failed
and Against
in Gaggero's
Gaggero's
Court's
Oaggero
....................................................................................
Praske's
6.
Action
for Attorneys'
Post-Judgment
KPC's
Parties
STANDARDS
That
of KPC
Plan on Grounds
B.
Malpractice
.....................................
The
B.
4.
BACKGROUND
..........
13
16
17
18
The Trial
Court
Properly
May Be Added
A.
Adding
Reverse
Egos
B.
That
Grounds
Gaggero's
Unity
Praske
A.
B.
Not Apply
Not
..................
to Trusts
18
or
,..............................................
Are Gaggero's
Evidence
21
Alter
...............................
Is Fact Specific
of Interest
and Based
Had Virtual
Litigation
Can Be Added
Claim
Does
26
on
by the Evidence
of and Participated
Gaggero
to the Judgment
...............
27
Control
Through
of the Alter
28
in
.................................
as the Trustee,
Are Irrevocable
Appellants
Failed to Overcome
the Presumption
That the
Trusts are Revocable
...............................................................
Not All Irrevocable
Trusts
Are Protected
Discretion
The Court's
Not Based
33
from Creditor's
34
There
Court's
.......................................................................
Rejection
of the Irrevocable
on a Finding
of Misconduct
The Court's
Trustee
33
29
Despite
........................
Reach .......................................................................................
,
18
.................................................................
26
Ego Parties
Appellants'
Egos .............
Piercing."
Allowing
Gaggero
to Hide His Assets
Would Result an Inequitable
Outcome
the Underlying
o
Does
by Substantial
Equitable
The Alter
Reverse
Ego Determination
Ego Parties
C.
Praske
Was Supported
Alter
"Outside
Piercing"
Alter
to the Judgment
....................................
The Finding
A.
Improper
"Outside
Trustees
as Gaggero's
Constitute
B.
Concluded
to the Judgment
Exercise
of Jurisdictions
to the Judgment
Is NoMerit
2008
Was Proper.
to Appellants'
Statement
Trust
Was
..........................................
over the Trusts
Concluded
That
38
to Add the
.............................................
Contention
of Decision
Argument
36
the Trial
That Gaggero
40
9.
Is Now
Bound
by Such
KPC's
Motion
Was Timely
Estoppel
10.
CONCLUSION
..................................................
Argument
Planning
in California
Order
Is Baseless
41
by Judicial
..........................................................................................
Gaggero's
Estate
a Finding
Undermines
43
All
.......................................
44
................................................................................
44
iii
Table
of Authorities
State
Ammco
Ornamental
(1994)
Assoc.
Vendors,
Inc. v. Oakland
of America
Meat
35
Co.
825 .....................................................................
v. Angel
View Crippled
72 Cal.App.4th
Children's
26
Foundation
45l ......................................................................
34
1194 ....................................................................
33
v. Conteras
(2002)
Galdjie
95 Cal.App.4th
v. Darwish
(2003)
113 Cal.App.4th
Greenspan
(2010)
Hall,
409 ......................................................................
210 Ca|.App.2d
(1999)
Crook
Inc. v. Wing
26 Cal.App.4th
(1962)
Bank
Iron,
Cases
v. LADT,
Heifetz
(1957)
Haisley
486 .............................................................
& Baker,
41 Cal.App.4th
v. Bank
21, 22
LLC
191 Cal.App.4th
Goodhue,
(1996)
1331 ............................................................
Inc. v. Marconi
Conf.
Center
Passim
Bd.
1551 ....................................................................
43
776 .....................................................................
33
171 .....................................................................
35
814 ....................................................................
17
1163 ...................................................................
18
of America
147 Cal.App.2d
Hill v. Conover
(1961)
191 Cal.App.2d
In re Marriage
(2008)
164 Cal.App.4th
In re Marriage
(1984)
Kazensky
(1998)
of Hoffmeister
16.1 Cal.App.3d
J.B. Aguerre,
(1997)
of Falcone
Inc.
v. American
59 Cal.App.4th
6 ..........................................................................
39
44 ........................................................................
17
v. City of Merced
65 Cal.App.4th
iv
Las Palmas
(199l)
v. Las Palmas
235 Cal.App.3d
Laycock
Center
Associates
1220 ...................................................................
26
25 ......................................................................
36
v. Hammer
(2006)
Mesler
141 Cal.App.4th
v. Bragg
(1985)
Misik
Associates
Management
39 Cal.3d
Co.
290 .....................................................................
l, 17, 26
v. D'Arco
(2011)
197 Cal.App.4th
NEC Electronics,
(1989)
Ohmer
v. Superior
People
ex rel. Dept.
(2008)
Sammis
Press,
661 .....................................................................
17, 18, 30
17
Wks. v. Busick
744 .....................................................................
Inc. v. Kaswa
162 Cal.App.4th
38
Corp.
1510 .............................................................
18-20
v. Stafford
(1996)
'18 Cal.App.4th
v. County
(2010)
Stewart
Pub.
259 Cal.App.2d
Instant
772 .........................................................
Court
148 Cal.App.3d
(1968)
17
v. Hurt
208 Cal.App.3d
(1983)
Postal
Inc.
1065 ..................................................................
1935 ....................................................................
17
Local Transportation
Authority
v. Guardino
220 ..............................................................................
38
of L.A.
47 Cal.4th
1298 ............................................................................
24
v. Towse
(1988)
203 Cal.App.3d
Stoltenberg
v. Newman
(2009)
179 Cal.App.4th
425 .....................................................................
40
287 ....................................................................
21
752 .....................................................................
20
Taylor v. Newton
(1953)
117 Cal.App.2d
Torrey Pines
(1991)
Faliyee
Bank
v. Hoffman
231 Cal.App.3d
v. Department
(1999)
of Motor
74 Cal.App.4th
Inc.
(1999)
v. Church
(1977)
(2010)
Co.
55 ........................................................................
(9th
1012 ....................................................................
17
353 ...............................................................................
23
v. Chen
185 Cal.App.4th
Credit
38
of Scientology
799 ....................................................................
Federal
Fleet
17
Corp.
20 Cal.3d
Corp.
Vehicles
v. Ohio Indem.
69 Cal.App.4th
Wood v. Elling
23
1026 ....................................................................
70 Cal.App.4th
Wollersheim
Zoran
308 .....................................................................
Corp.
Cir. 1995)
27
Cases
Inc.
11 .......... ;.............................................................
21
In re Moses
(9 t" Cir. 1999)
34
In re Schwarzkopf
(9th Cir. 2010)
In
re
626 E3d
1032 ......................................................
36
Turner
(Bartkr.
N.D.Cal.
2005)
335 B.R.
State
Code
21-25,
Cir.
Proc.,
140 .....................................................
20
Statutes
187 ................................................................................
18
Corps.
Code,
16306 ..................................................................................
25
Corps.
Code,
16956 ..................................................................................
25
15203 ....................................................................................
36
Prob.
Code,
vi
Prob.Code, 15400....................................................................................
33
Prob.Code, 17000..............................................................................
40, 41
Prob. Code, 15304..............................................................................
34, 35
Prob.Code, 15400....................................................................................
33
Prob.Code, 17000....................................................................................
40
StateRules
Cal. Rulesof Court, Rule 3.1332................................................................
17
SecondarySources
Rest.
2d Trusts
99(5)
................................................................................
vii
35
INTRODUCTION
The
essence
justice
is that
be done ....
'[L]iability
result.'
is imposed
... Thus
disregarded
to reach
an equitable
the corporate
... when
form will be
so
requires.
(Mesler
v. BraggManagement
Over
sixteen
Co. (1985)
years
ago, appellant
39 Cal.3d
Stephen
assets
proof,
a trail of lawsuits
of any adverse
personal
blazing
judgments.
assets
from
limited
assets
worth
liability
estates
held
as the "asset
in the trusts,
by the trustee
served
a crucial
underlying
absolute
M. Harris,
a judgment
Knapp,
and Andre
transferred
to $40,000,000
trusts.
name.
in the trust
for properties
to command
"estate
activities
over
payment
plan"
(1)
to avoid
in excess
of $2,000,000
Petersen
& Clarke,
(collectively
of
has
the years:
Jardini
into
and corporations,
company
Gaggero's
his
entered
Steven
"K-PC")
Ray
in the
action.
Indeed,
in his litigation
of respondents
Gaggero
in his personal
authority
lawsuits,
to shield
of a management
of the trusts.
including
in favor
Stephen
manager"
to fund various
judgments,
Garcia,
full control
dual purpose
as his piggybank
the court
exerted
judgment
designed
self-settled
nothing
by the potential
partnerships,
of three
absolutely
and exercised
money
paying
had
plan"
creditors,
limited
hatched
became
unburdened
$35,000,000
into ownership
By 1999, Gaggero
Gaggero
between
companies,
Nonetheless,
of his future
301.)
M, Gaggero
so that he essentially
As part of an "estate
the reach
290,
Praske,
as trustee
of Gaggero's
Arenzano
Trust,
that appellants
Giganin
Trust,
and
by
Ego Parties
as additional
The Motion
testimony
Praske,
established
Gaggero's
held
persuades
Gaggero
this appeal.
arguments,
there
main
is no evidence
of alter
estoppel
of these
finding
ownership
inequitable
to allow
found
the
the benefit
expressly
entities,
rejected
stating
ego[s],
"Mr.
the evidence
between
is without
merit.
was substantial
The
of holding
of unity
a series
his assets.
are sometimes
Ego Parties."
alter
ego liability.
raised
granted
on
the
of interest
and
The court
collectively
on
that (1)
as a matter
court properly
and Gaggero,
to hide behind
were
new argument
evidence
briefs
new
Gaggero
is prohibited
as well as each
as the "Alter
numerous
piercing"
arguments,
Gaggero
filed opening
to raise
ego relationship
in this brief
these
separately
attempt
raised
preclude
The Trusts
over
Joseph
and enjoyed
The court
Ego Parties
reverse
that there
between
and trustee
contentions
Motion
Ego Parties.
improperly
(2) "outside
including
of that."
evidence,
fully controlled
entities.
the court
While
their
Ego Parties,
created
these
Motion").
controlled
("the
attorney
Waiters.
that Gaggero
argument
Gaggero
planning
James
by the Alter
debtors
l_y substantial
his estate
of his fortune
firmly
was supported
of Gaggero,
evidence
judgment
be
entities
also concluded
referred
to
The
Underlying
In or about
because
a number
Gaggero
by Gaggero
it1 a $150,000
successful
obligation
anti-SLAPP
motion.
KPC
centered
on the VNBC
Gaggero
(CT1
statement
Gaggero
a malicious
against
Gaggero
96-97.)
primarily
around
judgment.
(CTI
case proceeded
retained
One of these
of homeowners
(CTI
had withdrawn
KPC
cases
was
prosecution
(VNBC)
after
his effort
lawsuit
that resulted
VNBC
Gaggero's
to
brought
legal malpractice
to avoid
his
101 .)
to a bench
and judgment
trial in 2007
in favor
found
was fully
Court
That
Gaggero's
resulting
in
of K_PC, which
supported
by the record. 2
94.)
A.
The
to Cheat
At the trial
Found
strategy"
(1) Gaggero
implemented
2 The history
of Gaggero's
against
is well
KPC
(May
Estate
Plan
Was
Used
His Creditors.
of the malpractice
used a "three-pronged
case:
counsel
75.)
Coalition,
of decision
appealed
60-62,
a group
judgment
The malpractice
a detailed
Beach
defense
case against
of his bills,
(CTI
against
Action.
over payment
of matters.
BACKGROUND
Malpractice
2000,
v. Venice North
brought
PROCEDURAL
Legal
August
of dispute
handle
AND
to avoid
underlying
documented
found
that Gaggero
the judgment
in the VNBC
plan"
legal
malpractice
in this court's
in Gaggero
B207567)
the court
paying
an "estate
judgment
6, 2010,
action,
v. Knapp,
[nonpub.
opn.].
in his
action
opinion
Petersen
affirming
&
The Court
Claim
With respect
approximately
Concluded
of Damages
to Gaggero's
$498,000
withdrawal
as Gaggero's
made
the following
findings:
the many
interpleader
competing
matters
action
claims
Gaggero
claim
against
Failed
_ Fees
KPC
filed
counsel
handled
by KPC
on approximately
4
attorneys
$l.4
million
of
following
for Gaggero
Bank
His
KPC.
for damages
in an interpleader
by First Federal
to Prove
Against
KPC's
3 Among
That
for Attorneys
was an
to resolve
in judgment
There
was no evidence
capacity
as officer,
that Gaggero
director
was represented
or employee
in a
of any of these
entities.
There
was no evidence
repay
any of these
that Gaggero
entities
to
attorneys.
Gaggero
testified
not even
have
he asked
the trustee
some
a checking
account.
Gaggero
demonstrate
made
Having
taken
this arrangement
outside
this position
position.
would
It therefore
word
on this point
trial.
Since
he paid
he wanted
money,
judicial
and did
attempt
litigation
whatsoever,
When
discretion.
(CT1
over
any fimds,
to
in an
the reach
of his creditors.
both throughout
the underlying
the court
apply
believed
to prevent
was appropriate
and let him accept
nothing,
hoping
he could
the doctrine
any change
to take Gaggero
the consequences
recover
of
in
at his
at the
nothing.
86-87.)
obtained
by Gaggero
in a wrongful
81-83.)
5
foreclosure
action.
(CT1
61,
Gaggero's
A.
"Estate
Overview.
In or about
Joseph
Praske,
valued
between
companies,
were
Plan."
1997, Gaggero
to transfer
created
all assets
$35,000,000
general
partnerships,
Gaggero
of the estate
the membership
interests
an estate
and property
to $40,000,000
limited
retained
to various
partnerships,
protectionplan.
(CTI
in the limited
129:3-9.)
liability
attorney,
he personally
(CT2
planning
limited
owned
liability
and corporations
191-195.)
that
At the
in the corporations
Gaggero
also owned
companies
into which
all of
he
Individuals in Gaggero'sEstate
Stephen
Giganin
M. Gaggero
Trust,
the "asset
the Trusts.
is the settlor
and Aquasante
manager"
(CT2
196:20-197:6,
CT3 439:20-25.)
handles
everything
related
selling,
financing,
trading,
everything."
company"
to write
Joseph
CT3 411.)
a personal
Praske
Praske
of the Trusts
secretary
of Boardwalk
partner
(CT2
account,
estate
(CT1
(CT2
(CT2
by
manager,
portfolio:
"buying
and
Gaggero
his "management
257:17-25.)
attorney.
the estate
124:19-23,
(CT3
of PCM
CT3 411-413.)
LP, Marina
(CT2
395,
CT2 236:7-9,
of the 5 t t OFW
is also
owned
196:24-197:6.)
planning
195:16-21,
and director
Sunset
Trust,
Gaggero
As the asset
so he uses
and implemented
his property.
192-193.)
on his behalf.
is Gaggero's
designed
checking
checks
(CT2
- Arenzano
Gaggero
of the Trusts
Foundation.
of the Trusts,
Plan.
CT3 412:12-
309-310),
LLC,
Praske
(CT2
Glencoe
LP,
the
195:21-22),
is
Chatfield
(CT2
the time
is Gaggero's
258:2-23,
the underlying
Praske
CT2 259:8-14,
Motion
in his individual
Gaggero
testified
exclusively
in 2007
that manages
them."
Although
documents,
including
claims
court
that there
include
notice
refused
to the vested
or my assets
to produce
company
the trust
of the Aquasante
Foundation
of the Gaggero
205:17-206:18.)
Although
his counsel
the Judgment
Praske
represented
could
and contingent
Family,"
194:19-22.)
are no beneficiaries,
to Amend
has worked
added.)
member
(CT2
for
or a management
emphasis
"any
(CT2
is Gaggero.
first giving
or foundation
steadfastly
himself.
Trust
256:27-260:2,
Up until
was counsel
260:9-12,
"in-house
CT2 260:1-4.)
Mr. Chatfield
Trust
Gaggero
the Giganin
or trusts
(CT2
they claim
Ego Parties'
appellants
4 (CT2
that involve
27-28,
was filed,
capacity.
on matters
now
to the trial
not proceed
remainder
of
without
beneficiaries.
(RT 11:5-13.)
C.
Assets
Pacific
company
in Gaggero's
Coast
for assets
167:12-14,
Management,
personally.
(CT2
manages
his "assets,
companies,
assets
within
255:1-5.)
In Gaggero's
me, my life,
Mr. Chatfield
on the Motion
card,
represented
that he "represent
these
is the management
Gaggero
4 Nonetheless,
Plan.
Inc. ("PCM")
held by Praske
CT2 255:1-5.)
"pay my utilities.
Estate
trusts."
company"
own words,
for
PCM
and
to the court
the trustee
(RT 2:13-16.)
8
(CT1
at the hearing
who controls
these
Trust,
the Arenzano
The Giganin
Trust
Gaggero's
trusts
in Gaggero's
is qualified
personal
acres
adjoining
either
the Arenzano
The Arenzano
Trust
is owned
Anguilla-
known
Arenzano
The
following
entities
Blu House
LLC,
Gaggero's
real property
California
(CT1
Sunset
LLC,
formed
12, 1998
at 517 Ocean
located
(CT3
Front
Front
Walk,
368:18);
Gaggero's
California
LP, formed
property
CT2 372:7-21);
Venice,
Walk,
Boardwalk
of holding
Malibu
BroadBeach
of holding
(CT2
a number
236:22-28,
on February
(CT2
Gaggero's
(CT1
LP,
of
CT2 237:1-
Gaggero's
plan:
Venice,
California
Gingerbread
California
estate
Venice,
in Marina
of holding
The
of holding
Glencoe
Walk,
374:8-9.)
373:1-11.)
at 523 Ocean
Front
the laws of
in Southern
Marina
of holding
under
laws.
trusts,
(CT 1 121:10-15.)
as part of Gaggero's
properties
were
trust organized
at 601 Ocean
on February
Gaggero's
Foundation.
(CT3
The 2,000
one of Gaggero's
located
134:16-21,
by another
trust.
192:25-193:11.)
193:24-28.)
asset protection
on May
134:16-21,
formed
real property
formed
formed
(CT2
(CT2
or the Aquasante
is an off-shore
estate.
residence
residence.
his residence
Trust
Court
LP, formed
real property
(CT2
on
located
and 511
OFWLP,
formed
Gaggero's
real property
California
(CT2
Praske
314),
318,
Court
LLC (CT2
Glencoe
Sunset
Venice,
by KPC
Praske's
Estate
LP (CT3
LP (CT2
318).
497:2-9)
(CT2
317),
Praske
is
estate
of its motion
44-CT3
to amend
the judgrnent
to
Discovery.
Refusal
Plan
LLC (CT3
Glencoe
on Gaggero's
in support
(CTI
Marina
LLC
525).
information
Post-Judgment
A.
Walk,
of holding
LP (CT3
Ego Parties.
KPC's
Front
of process
315),
319),
of Boardwalk
at 511 Ocean
for service
LP (CT2
&Marina
12, 1998
CT2 360:22-362:19).
Sunset
located
is the agent
Boardwalk
Gingerbread
on March
to Answer
on Grounds
Questions
of Privacy
Relating
to the
and Attorney-Client
Privilege.
On June
Praske.
(CT2
8, 2009,
357-359.)
Gaggero's
attorney
to provide
basic
any benefit
David
Gaggero
received
on grounds
(CT2
CT2 366:12-23,
B.
Gaggero's
Relating
underlying
5 Nonetheless,
Gaggero
KPC
Plan,
of Relevancy,
appeals
served
appellants
contend
Including
and privacy
rights.
or Documents
Trust
Documents,
and stays
discovery
to the contrary
10
including
and Privilege.
filed by Gaggero
27.)
plan,
refused
CT3 372:15-24.)
Privacy
by same
by
Pmske
Information
post-judgment
estate
privilege
to Provide
to His Estate
377.)
his property
CT3 368:11-'18,
Refusal
numerous
lawsuit,
to Gaggero's
for transferring
of
at the examination
359-CT3
of attorney-client
on Grounds
Following
s (CT2
relating
was represented
Chatfield.
information
debtor examination
counsel.
in the
on Gaggero
that Praske
(See AOB
and
26-
that
under
violated
attorney-client
331:12-13,
third party
privilege,
CT2 332:5-16,
and/or
privacy
rights,
was
the work-product
CT2 332:25-333:1,
doctrine.
CT2 333:11-15,
CT2
333:25-334:1.)
On April
instant
motion
30, 2012,
to amend
approximately
two weeks
the judgment,
Gaggero
responses
to KPC's
document
requests.
reiterated
the same
objections
and refused
related
to the Trusts
or his estate
Gaggero
averred
(CT1
plan.
after
provided
supplemental
Gaggero
any documents
469:24-26,
filed the
to produce
(CT3
KPC
CT3 470:17-19,
plan documents
KPC's
Motion
Parties.
On April
to Amend
10, 2012,
KPC
Ego Parties
to the judgment.
as the trustee
of the three
The Motion
(CT1
24.)
judicial
also sought
testimony
given
Gaggero
and Praske
evidence"
Ego Parties
were Gaggero's
KPC
rejected
were
purchase
dispute
of three
(Gaggero
District,
ocean
u Yura (2008),
Division
Five
(CT3
44-54.)
the Motion.
separately
application
(2) KPC
of"outside
provided
alter egos,
from
asserting
pending
Gaggero
front
litigation
and Yura
properties
Court of Appeal,
(Appeal
in Santa
Second
No. B203780)
BC239810).)
12
involving
relating
to the
Monica.
Appellate
(Super.
"no
and (3)
397-414.)
filed
for opposing
grounds.
is a currently
between
KPC
and proved"
separate.
all of these
Yura lawsuit
contract
"argued
of
grounds
requires
Ego Parties
precluded
&trial
6 (CTI
three
estoppel
for
and Gaggero
in California,
and Gaggero
6 The
Ego Parties
ego.
request
to oppose
is prohibited
because
ultimately
v. Yura lawsuit.
of counsel,
matter,
appeared
alter
ego of Gaggero.
excerpts
which
and collateral
argument
Parties
(1) adding
piercing"
judicial
the Alter
to the Motion,
the Motion:
reverse
While
as the alter
including
specially
to add Praske
that he is Gaggero's
in the underlying
in the Gaggero
Ego
sought
by declaration
of exhibits
the Alter
Motion
The Motion
on the basis
was supported
Ego Parties
397-414.)
opposition
Trusts
by Gaggero
The Alter
(CT3
(CT1 24.)
and 22 pieces
to Add
The Motion
notice,
Judgment
Ct. No.
6.
Court's
Order
Granting
the court
the court
Motion
heard
to Amend
oral argument
Judgment.
on the Motion.
At
opined:
I have
a very substantial
the nature
submitted
it looks
appropriate
motions.
I seem
to have
of evidence
on
quite
Gaggero
monies
amount
of these relationships
to me in connection
and frankly
Mr.
KPC's
a showing
conlrols
these -- directs
the
[at] will.
(RT 2:1-8.)
At the hearing,
tim..__&e
that the Trusts
counsel
are irrevocable
follow
certain
procedures
notice
to the beneficiaries
to access
the probate
Probate
Code
explanation
4:19-28,
section
waived,
The court
documents
to KPC
On that basis,
Trusts
(including
beneficiaries
trust documents.
produce
ruled
to the purported
offered
also argued
under
no
papers.
arguments
(RT
as being
trust beneficiaries.
could
when
not invoke
and
(RT 7:8-27.)
the terms
whether
they have
refused
observed
that Praske's
it impossible
(RT 8:4-12.)
13
the trust
confidential.
are irrevocable
The court
made
to produce
the Trusts
540.)
to these
giving
the Motion
in the opposition
had refused
that Praske
than Gaggero)
(CT3
including
of trust matters
Counsel
to
(RT 6:2-20.)
that Pmske
whether
other
objected
on the ground
the court
Counsel
to hear
jurisdiction
these arguments
agreed.
noted
(RT 3:6-24.)
(RT 3:14-16.)
KPC properly
of the Trusts,
lacked jurisdiction
17000.
the assets
argued
of the Trusts,
trusts
Ego Parties
of the
there
to produce
refusal
were
the
to
notice
controlled
appearing
parties.
Their
assets
they wouldn't
testified
Gaggero's
assets.
That is the bottom
They
line.
He did so by
of the specially
interests
Without
Gaggero
the specially
(RT 18:10-28,
the litigation.
of the financial
them
even exist.
parties
are aligned
-- without
Mr. Praske
of the existence
is to hold Mr.
RT 19:1-5.)
14
Mr.
the same.
of
The court
Gaggero
also specifically
fully controlled
addressed
the assets
Mr. Praske
the evidence
of the Trusts
showing
as his own,
and purposes
stating:
rubber stamp.
And the testimony
that you
directed me to confirm
that if he makes the
recommendation,
Mr. Praske
does it.
that language
It is a
any other
way.
(RT 22:18-22.)
... Gaggero
property
three
(RT 23:13-16.)
When
Mr. Gaggero
says jump,
Mr. Praske
says
the court
granted
I am persuaded
persons
the Motion,
by the showing
and entities
stating:
that these
of Mr.
Gaggero
and clearly, clearly, it would be
inequitable
not to pierce the veil -- not to get out
[sic] these entities which are his alter
Since he has this substantial
judgment
him, and he has attempted
to use these
ego.
against
devices
to litigate
this.
RT 26:1-7.)
Mr. Gaggero
controlled
these entities.
firmly
They
persuades
are
the
(RT 27:21-23.)
And Mr. Gaggero
system,
you know,
is --
that
minute
order.
(CT3
540.)
The minute
Mr. Praske,
represented
who represented
refused
order
stated
the court
entered
its
that:
Mr. Gaggero,
to produce
grounds
on the Motion,
has apparently
on the
That refusal
has resulted
in [there] now being no evidentiary
[sic] for any of the factual assertions
concerning
the trust which
particular,
counsel
has made
to the extent
are beneficiaries
while
counsel,
have
to provide
suggests
and contingent
counsel
today.
to notice,
represented
made
further
In
there
beneficiaries
the actions
of Mr.
by Mr. Gaggero's
this impossible.
information
The offer
is of limited
scope.
The motion
basis
of KPC
Gaggero,
sets forth
a convincing
who controlled
this litigation.
(c3"3540.)
The
2012
adding
court's
order
the Alter
granting
Ego Parties
KPC's
Motion
as additional
was signed
judgment
on May
debtors.
29,
(CT3
541-542.)
On June
the order.
(CT3
1, 2012,
Gaggero
543-545.)
16
Ego Parties
appealed
from
STANDARDS
The trial court's
debtors
is reviewed
(2010)
sound
discretion
486,
to Code
decision
by substantial
Cal.App.3d
772, 777,
1012,
"Evidence
considered
Merced
the court
legitimate
trial court
made
(Sammis
under
discretion
Vehicles
pursuant
necessary
to
are supported
(1989)
208
(1999)
69
Consistent
of a request
Rules
164 Cal.App.4th
814, 823.)
17
principles,
where
that the
the judgments.
1942.)
a hearing
(Ohmer
Reviewing
of Court,
1026,
to continue
a continuance
all
decision.
74 Cal.App.4th
to support
standard.
661,666-667.)
and draw
1935,
v. City of
that determination,
with these
necessary
have
(Kazensky
conflicts
fact, an appellate
of discretion
(Cal.
(1999)
48 Cal.App.4th
not to grant
in so doing.
(2008)
they
In making
in favor
findings
denial
the abuse
choice
findings
of Scientology
evidentiary
at p. 52.)
(1996)
148 Cal.App.3d
trial court's
44, 52-53.)
on a particular
brought
inferences
all factual
v. Stafford
(1983)
credible,
of Motor
supra,
is silent
great
lnc. v. Hurt
v. Church
must resolve.all
v. Department
the record
is done,
wlaether
if any reasonable
65 Cal.App.4th
1031 ; Kazensky,
197
1014-1015.)
and reasonable
(Valiyee
Factual
LLC
lies in
(2011)
of amendments
to determine
is substantial
of appeal
v. D'Arco
187"].)
Wollersheim
v. LADT,
to amendjudgraent
(NECElectronics,
it reasonable,
(1998)
section
are reviewed
evidence.
Cal.App.4th
order
to add judgment
(Greenspan
in the allowance
of Civil Procedure
the court's
508 [decision
1073 ["[i]n
is encouraged
a judgment
of discretion.
of trial court];
1065,
liberality
to amend
for an abuse
191 Cal.App.4th
Cal.App.4th
Falcone
decision
OF REVIEW
unless
courts
v. Superior
Continuances
Court
must uphold
the court
Rule 3.1332;
date is
has abused
its
In re Marriage
of
are granted
only
of Hoffmeister
(1984)
161 Cal.App.3d
1163,
re
1169.)
ARGUMENT
1.
The
Trial Court
May
Be Added
Code
authority
Properly
Concluded
to the Judgment
of Civil Procedure
That
section
187 affords
necessary"
to carry
process
Thus,
a judgment
person
Code
of Civil Procedure
or entity
Electronics,
is the alter
Inc.,
A.
supra,
Adding
Alter
the Alter
Postal
of corporate
As support
Instant
Press,
1518 ("Postal
Instant
Press
because
In Postal
described
Instant
"'outside'
which
claims
against
Here,
or 'third
an individual
the Alter
limited
outsider
liability
(2008)
the Fourth
that a
(NEC
Does
consist
''_ (Postal
in
on
1510,
and Postal
lnstant
to the judgment.
Court
corporate
of Appeal
as the situation
assets
lnstant
limited
in
to satisfy
Press,
is prohibited
rely exclusively
piercing"
to reach
shareholder.
claim
"outside
162 Cal.App.4th
District
Not
to add the
so constitutes
Ego PaNes
part:/reverse
companies,
of
Piercing."
are mistaken
of the Alter
Ego Parties
the amendment
debtor."
Reverse
appellants
Corp.
seeks
may
Civ. Proc.,
to the Judgment
Appellants
Appellants
Press,
judgment
doing
(Code
of law, it is improper
veil, which
Press").
which
on the grounds
"Outside
Inc. v. Kaswa
into effect
at p. 778.)
Ego Parties
Improper
to the judgment
piercing"
California.
Ego Parties
Egos.
with broad
187 allows
debtors
Ego Parties
reverse
judgment
courts
of proceeding"
section
208 Cal.App.3d
Constitute
Appellants
or mode
Alter
its jurisdiction
187.)
the Alter
as Gaggero's
supra,
and
partnerships
Press
to pursuing
afforded
issue
court
criticized
claims
for conversion
to judgment
that outside
corporate
creditors.
reverse
Rather,
defraud
judgment
corporation
The concern
Postal
Instant
be adversely
individual
1512,
Press,
1523-1524.)
corpol_tion.
than it is about
judgment
essentially
to add new
the same
and a trustee.
subject
Instant
further
Press,
explained
against
to the
(Ibid.)
in
of the corporation
may
of an
162 Cal.App.4th
that judgment
attempts
or improper
to
by the court
supra,
at pp.
collection
to shield
transfer
by the court
assets
of such assets
observed,
in Postal
19:5.)
from
to a
but merely
as the original
These
piercing"
the court
19
upon
are not
reverse
RT 27:21-23,
Ego
equitable
debtor.
Alter
analysis.
B and C, infra.
about
judgment
non-corporate
Press
(RT 18:10-19:1-5,
that Gaggero
To be clear,
parties,
Instant
to "reverse
in subsections
shareholders
here determined
essentially
(RT
as described
the corporation
raised
piercing
considerations.
piercing,
(Id. at p.
may seek
assets
of the
1523.)
were
is that a ._hareholder
protection
present.
Parties
liability."
from collection.
the fraudulent
The court
from personal
the assets
The court
the concerns
CT3 540.)
personal
(Postal
(Id. atp.
Here,
seeks to address
by requiring
c_ffer adequate
through
is that innocent
shareholder.
creditors
It explained
with reverse
affected
procedures
(Id. at p. 1532.)
by transferring
to shield
shortcut"
already
concern
creditors
as "an unacceptable
conveyance
the shareholder
the primary
in order
piercing
and fraudulent
piercing
form to shield
1523.)
reverse
who were
(Misik,
Ego Parties
See separate
the
supra,
are not
discussions
97
the real
debtor].)
Moreover,
there
the record
are"innocent"
appellants'
members,
Press
shareholders
unsupported
Gaggero
admitted
sheltering
Parties
debtor,
by debtor];
Gaggero
130:10-13.)
of evading
claims
for conversion
to KPC.
The Postal
to apply
outside
revere
or
owner
of
Postallnstant
an individual
creditors
traditional
reasons,
Postal
where
(1953)
sets
and
plan"
long before
or fraudulent
Instant
piercing
Press
is not
outside
judgment
Instant
reverse
p. 1524.)
formed
Press
creditor
2005)
Instant
alternate
holding
outside
reverse
piercing
is strictly
without
exception.
2O
piercing
and controlled
140, 146-147
purpose
held that,
is created
even
if
the
to meet
the requirements
for
supra,
162 Cal.App.4th
at
Press,
This
[corporate
335 B.R.
court alternatively
of the corporate
law. (See
purpose
with no business
Ego
the judgment
by California
for fraudulent
and the
the Alter
amending
752, 758-60
N.D.Cal.
of entities
piercing
its application.
order
is fully supported
(Bankr.
or series
is not controlling,
the court's
117 Cal.App.2d
In re Turner
8 The Postal
Press
as a matter
corporation
an entity
Instant
s Rather,
Ego Parties
v. Newton
permitted
(CT1
not available
to the judgment,
Taylor
shareholders
in this case.
[when
Because
for refusing
For these
trial court
the situation,
are simply
rationale
implicated
may be other
that
Despite
his assets.
he was a judgment
court's
under
the notion
of the Entities.
that there
of entities
conveyance
or members
assertion
up a series
here simply
belies
appellants'
prohibited
assertion
in California
that
and
Credit
1995)'65
[applying
by a judgment
extension
debtor
In relying
Parties
on Postal
can be added
between
trusts
not a legal
corporation,
trustee...
entity,
"[l]egal
(2003)
legal
(2009)
relating
supra,
outside
or trustees.
1331,
reverse
In fact,
supra,
2010)
626 E3d
failed
of the Alter
a crucial
Ego
distinction
in California,
atp.
or
a trust
522.)
is
Unlike
or to defend
and liabilities.
an action."
As such,
(Stoltenberg
Galdjie
directed
v.
v. Darwish
piercing,
the Second
1032,
Circuit
and trustees
applied
to reach
trust assets.
Court
in Postal
Court
of Appeals
discussed
entity,
at the trustee.
developer
to supervise
Instant
the rule
Press,
to trusts
in Greenspan,
in In re Schwarzkopf(9th
ego doctrine
that alter
Barry
his various
21
for extending
of Appeal
the alter
and concluded
real estate
companies
as stated
District
recently
of.trusts
liability
ignore
context
limited
to Trusts
that none
191 Cal.App.4th
1344.)
as an
at pp. 521-522.)
have
In Greenspan,
Not Apply
to argue
owned
to sue or be sued,
proceedings
Does
a collection
179 Cal.App.4th
the corporation
As recognized
supra,
... is simply
Appellants
against
entities.
created
alter ego].)
appellants
title to property
113 Cal.App.4th
(Greenspan,
Press
to the judgment,
(Greenspan,
it has no capacity
debtor's
Piercing"
Instant
and business
A trust
Newman
Reverse
law, a corporation
and operated
"Outside
Trustees.
California
of himself
B.
Corp.
in the
ego doctrine
Shy created
real estate
Cir.
may be
several
development
projects. (Greenspan,supra,
transferred
brother
ownership
could
of the companies
as the trustee,
p. 497.)
and acted
companies
(LADT
the alter
a trust.
California
agreed,
cases
191 Cal.App.4th
procedure
stated
because
a judgment
capacity."
that courts
by Shy as
authority,
Galdjie,
not
court
but not a
must be made
entity,
of
a trio of
to a trustee,
between
Citing
the Greenspan
applies
should
at p. 518.)
that a distinction
to satisfy
creditor
liability
and managed
of a corporation
as well as out-of-state
The court
two limited
argued
his
(Id. at
the judgment
owned
in Greenspan
the domination
supra,
chose
creditor
(Greenspan,
against
LLC)
trust,
of the companies.
was whether
entered
between
Shy then
to an irrevocable
in Greenspan
distinguish
h at p. 496,)
as the "manager"
to a judgment
The judgment
trust.
191 Cal.App.4t
will be available
supra,
113 Cal.App.4th
at p.
1349.)
Applying
party judgment
these
creditor
the owner/manager
Cal.App.4th
the alter
principles,
may
judgment."
at p. 522.)
It further
the owner
corporate
E3d
court
entities.
concluded
(Greenspan,
owner/manager,
supra,
is found
assets
for purposes
191
to be
"may be
of satisfying
the
(Ibid.)
In In re Schwarzkopf
California
properly
of the judgment
considered
the Greenspan
law, similarly
piercing
at p. 1038.)
the Ninth
Circuit
court
to trusts.
upheld
Court
on outside
(In re Schwarzkopf
of Appeals,
applying
reverse
supra.
ego theory
by a
626
There,
their
minor
"Grove
Trust")
The Ninth
outset
because
fraudulent
supra,
the debtors
was funded
purpose
purpose.
15203,
of avoiding
which
trusts
(Id. at p. 1035.)
The
trust
(1bid.)
the Apartment
Trust
was invalid
the Debtors'
creditors."
provides
that "trusts
to the Grove
Trust,
from the
for the
(In re Schwarzkopf
on California
Probate
may be created
Code
(1bid.)
With respect
liability
in 1997.
of assets
section
was funded
held/tfiat
the transfer
two irrevocable
Circuit
established
trusts.
applied
to masts,
the Ninth
Circuit
stating:
California
recognizes
alter ego liability where
two conditions
are met: First, where "there is
such
a unity
of interest
individuality,
and ownership
or separateness,
that the
and corporation
has ceased;" and, second,
where "adherence
to the fiction of the separate
existence
fraud
of the corporation
or promote
Corp.,
See,
injustice."
20 Cal.3d
P.2d 755,761
have applied
would
353,
... sanction
Wood v. Elling
142 Cal.Rptr.
696,
572
n. 9 (1977) ....
California
courts
the alter ego doctrine to trusts.
e.g., Torrey
Pines
Bank
v. Hoffman,
231
Cal.App.3d
308, 282 CallRptr. 354, 359 (1991)
(holding
guarantors
of a family mast liable for
the trust's
(In re Schwarzkopf
The Ninth
piercing"
debts
supra,
Circuit
under
an alter
ego theory).
discussed
added.)
"outside
and concluded:
In the context
Supreme
where
Court
of trusts,
however,
has allowed
a mast is alleged
the California
alter ego
to be a debtor's
23
claims
alter
reverse
ego
Supreme
Court
a complaint
to assert
concluding,
alter
essentially
entities."
further
in question
reverse
(ln re Schwarzkopf,
The Ninth
piercing
supra,
then
were themselves
to confer
extend
trusts
alter
would
of
courts,
the prohibition
on
concluded
that legal
of trusts,
under
1038.)
"equitable
rights."
California
ownership
requirement
ownership
Thus,
those
is not an absolute
supra,
that
Circuit
(In reSchwarzkopfi
and proven
from California
we cannot
to amend
guidance
therefore,
the
leave
ego claims,
sufficient
Corp.,
gave
of the alter
for alter
In particular,
interest
ego liability.
the court
is traditionally
(Id. at p. 1039.)
It explained:
hold an equitable
interest in trust property
and
are "'regarded
as the real owner[s]
of [that]
property.'"
Steinhart
v. County of L.A., 47
Cal.4th
1298, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d
195, 223 P.3d 57,
72 (2010)
(alterations
in original;
citation
omitted);
see also 76 Am.Jur.2d
Trusts 258
(2010) (the creation of a trust places legal title
in the trustee
beneficiary;
equitable
California
sufficient
purposes
and equitable
courts
will enforce
interest).
a beneficiary's
We conclude
law, equitable
to meet
of alter
title in the
that,
ownership
the ownership
under
in a trust is
requirement
for
ego liability.
(Zb;d.)
The court
Grove
noted
otherwise
the Grove
were
to pay their
Trust
24
able
to direct
personal
as a separate
the trustee
expenses
entity.
and
(In re
of the
Sehwarzkopf,
by acting
as the owners
"equitable
alter
supra,
owners"
of the trust,
ego liability.
C.
(although
not as a trustee
In the same
Piercing"
of the Alter
Appellants
no authority
piercing
silent
as to the ability
based
on inadequate
theories.
the authorizing
of courts
(Corps.
with
of limited
set forth
in Corporations
level.
preclude
to the limited
failure
to adhere
(Corps.
Code,
structural
because
partnerships
piercing
protection
establish
between
of reverse
a corporation
corporate
piercing
///
Glencoe,
LP, Gingerbread
are
the appropriate
Entities.
Entities
are
requirements
///
partnership
or
theories
no formalities
are
16956.)
differences
the application
against
to formalities,
Corporate
16956
partnerships.
for limited
in California
section
are partnerships.
///
9 The
of
to the judgment,
to partnerships
Code
partnership
statutes
16306.)
partnerships
The significant
parlmership
for
in their
liability
to "pierce
Code,
regard
Ego Parties
to limited
capitalization,
required
capitalization
the
in Context
the Trusts
can be added
applies
This is because
not appropriate
were
foundation
Not Apply
grouped
Ego Parties
offer
Does
have
similar
or a beneficiary),
Partnerships.
that none
reverse
Reverse
Limited
outside
found
(Id. at 1038.)
"Outside
argument
The court
are Malibu
Court,
25
Broad
Beach,
LP, Marina
LE
and a
analysis
2.
The Finding
Egos
Was
A,
That
Praske
Supported
Alter
is not made
which
to depend
appear
general
Whether
Associates
supported
"[t]here
will be pierced;
particular
essentially
the result
(Mesler,
(Assoc.
Cal.App.2d
825, 837.)
alter
and ownership
no longer
corporation
alone,
Cal.2d.
exist,
commingling
individuals
general
the alter
of assets,
established
entity
should
may be
(Ibid.)
veil should
be
not be disturbed
when
when
the corporate
on the circumstances
at p. 300.)
"[T]he
is particularly
Meat
by the California
personalities
of each
doctrine
within
is
the
for
Supreme
of the corporation
will follow."
Court
urdtv of interest
veil
Co. (1962)210
(Mesler,
and the
as those
supra,
of the
39
added.)
ego analysis
diversion
and corporation
The
v. Oakland
an i.nequitable
at p. 300, emphasis
While
39 Cal.2d
individual
will depend
Inc.
ego liability
1248.)
of each case.
test to determine
Only
rules
factual
v. Las
a corporate
Vendors,
and its
(Ibid.)
supra,
guidance."
which
of fact which
is no litmus
an equitable
province
on
involving
1220,
to the circumstances
evidence.
rather
case."
under
a question
by substantial
Thus,
and Based
(Las PalmasAssociates
has established
is primarily
Alter
principles,
decisions
according
the evidence
ignored
Specific
on equitable
upon prior
to be similar.
Center
vary
Gaggero's
Evidence.
Is Fact
is founded
Palmas
disregarded
Are
Grounds.
situations
Entities
by Substantial
Ego Determination
Equitable
application
and the
used
encompasses
of assets
to personal
26
a host of factors,
use, whether
whether
such as
the
they employed
191 Cal.App.4th
185 Cal.App.4th
B.
Gaggero's
Here,
assets
the court
controlled
the litigation.
in KPC's
Motion.
one estate
plan
a single
180: 8-14.)
When
to be purchased,
property
Entities
looked
stated:
a limited
in the estate
assets.
They
even
are one
"I could
the different
Gaggero,
no separate
take
title to a
company,
Trusts
in my
a limited
(CT1
provided
and having
that entity
27
with
of the
by the evidence
or a corporation,
at "the liquidity
are aligned
liability
plan.
of the financial
of the existence
the _i_
they wouldn't
how he would
subsume..,
properties
or asset,
asked
of the
(RT 18:26-19:5.)
enterprise
partnership,
or the foundation
or the different
line."
Gaggero
it to an entity,
(2010)
as follows:
interests
Mr. Gaggero
the Entities
constituting
a general
Their
For instance,
property
the trusts
parties.
conclusion
(CT1
partnership,
is the bottom
identity.
transfer
v. Chen
by the Evidence.
regarding
parties
That
The court's
Gaggero
them -- without
testified
appearing
the same.
name,
Corp.
Established
its conclusions
appearing
Without
Mr. Praske
specially
Zoran
Was Fully
summarized
of the specially
exist.
of Interest
between
Mr. Gaggero.
[and]
Unity
Ego Parties
and ownership
"Gaggero
quot2ng
799, 8 t 1-812.)
Alter
interest
at pp. 512-513,
one of
plan, just
180:8-14.)
Thus,
in the estate
in purchasing
a
in
plan,
Moreover,
gains
as Gaggero
on the properties
tax returns.
(CT2
in the Trusts
also included
the Trusts
the Trusts
Gaggero's
personal
trustee
before
Would
Parties
egos
not to pierce
referred
to
estate
plan"
by Praske,
which
or
Gaggero
(CT1
180:6-7.)
to Gaggero.
(CT2
he stated
192-193.)
that he is the
Ego Parties
of
[Gaggero]
The court's
conclusion
admitting
collection
by creditors.
..."
The court
devices
among
persons
it would
28
Ego
and entities
be inequitable
judgrnent
against
beyond
RT 26:1-6.)
others,
if the Alter
(RT 25:27-28,
creditors."
of
His Creditors
result
"these
clearly,
from
was based,
an unity
Outcome.
stating:
to use these
creditors
His Assets
would
and clearly,
shared
The
by the evidence.
that _
to the judgment,
of Mr. Gaggero
testflnony
to Hide
and convincing.
and Gaggero
an Inequitable
also concluded
of legitimate
trial, to shield
and Praske
trust."
as belonging
Gaggero
to
Result
are alter
Gaggero's
referred
CT2 222:5-8.)
Allowing
The court
192:25-28,
estate"
and ownership
C.
all
285:7-11.)
conclusion
interest
in the estate,
and Praske
"Gaggero's
submitted
personal
The evidence
court's
(CT2
in a declaration
(CT2
both Gaggero
as constituting
to the Trusts
of "Gaggero's
$1,100,000.
149:13-
flow through
also referred
For example,
of the assets
Tellingly,
estate.
to the Trusts
Praske
(CTI
241:4-7.)
The evidence
referred
his estate.
on Gaggero's
to avoid judgment
"Mr. Gaggero
purposes.
(RT 27:25-28,
own
is the one
In
in the Trusts,
Gaggero
Parties
to insist
foreclosing
prevent
created
legitimate
while
serving
correct
through
from
as Gaggero's
from
conveyance
to
Ego
plan"
will result
"estate
his enormous
The
to avoid
set up solely
in an injustice
As the
plan"
assets,
(RT 25:4-7.)
Gaggero
ago,
by his creditors.
of Gaggero's
reaching
that allowing
creditors,
be inequitable
"piggybank."
assets
between
creditors
in concluding
plan"
for fraudulent
recognized,
that it would
to
by the evidence.
his "estate
any claims
clearly
conclusion
on the separateness
court
the court's
all the
court
his lawful
to shield
is to
was
obligation
his personal
of Gaggero.
3.
The
Alter
Ego
Parties
in the Underlying
Taking
there
snippets
of evidence
was no evidence
represented
the ample
interests
Parties
were
were
virtually
dominated
represented
strikingly
an individual's
interests
representation
established."
by Gaggero,
similar
the court's
a single
control
of the proposed
(Greenspan,
fail to
that Gaggero's
through
in Greenspan
enterprise
of the arbitration
judgment
supra,
debtors
191 Cal.App_4th
explained:
29
consisting
Ego
were
Gaggero.
held that when
dominated
the "requisite
the court
that
or were
finding
Ego Parties,
litigation
contend
so, appellants
facts,
Participated
appellants
controlled
In doing
in the underlying
Under
companies,
Ego Parties
of the Alter
of and
Gaggero.
of out context,
supporting
as those
Control
Through
litigation.
evidence
the same
Virtual
in the underlying
recognize
Had
Litigation
he created,
of the trust
The court
and
Section
187 does not require that the proposed
judgment
debtors "themselves,
technically
[have
been]
given
the arbitrator
arbitration.
([bid.,
quoting
NEC
they should
Electronics
Just as in Gaggero's
Shy, created
estate
several
chose
companies.
issue
his brother
trustee
was
of Shy trust,
companies
and acted
his various
as the "manager"
real
of the
The primary
could
companies
entered
LLC)
to
495.)
creditor
Barry
of the companies
atp.
by Shy to a judgment
(LADT
in Greenspan,
the ownership
liability
at p. 779.)
to supervise
the judgment
in the
208 Cal.App.3d
191 Cal.App.4th
whether
created
prevailed
companies
transferred
supra,
to convince"
the individual
as the trustee,
(Greenspan,
in Greenspan
plan,
liability
projects,
have
lnc., supra,
estate
limited
development
a trust,
the opportunity
(Harpo
LLC
against
two limited
on grounds
and
of alter
ego liability.
In concluding
and exercised
of the proposed
that the alter
in charge
of a single
is typically
entities,
treated
their
concerned
supra,
"distinct"
concerned,
Greenspan
during
interests
In Greenspan.
the arbitration
as a unitary
interests
their
were
there
on behalf
court
amount
enterprise,
Thus,
to his own.
was no dispute
3O
alter
ego
held by all
one.
not have
and
considered
(1-bid.)
Shy's
that the
as far as he was
that because
court
if Shy viewed
because,
of
and
of his assets
he would
the arbitration
of himself
concluded
of several
by any pa_icular
at p. 510,)
identical
control
on the theory
consisting
held
consisting
the G_'eenspan
191 Cal.App.4th
debtors,
is premised
enterprise
enterprise
the requisite
judgment
ego doctrine
entities
(Greenspan,
a single
the defense
debtors.
in
The
were
part
191
at pp. 509-510.)
Applying
the holding
requisite
control
the Alter
Ego Parties.
of multiple
and virtual
trusts,
partnerships
in Greenspan
representation
Gaggero's
corporations,
- all controlled
estate
his enterprise,
liability
lawsuit
attached
was
parties
Mr. Gaggero's
is to protect
assets,
satisfied
for
consisting
and limited
Gaggero's
to the motion
that the
enterprise
appearing
been
control
on his behalf
showing
have
companies,
Thus,
Ego Parties.
exhibits
it is clear
plan is a single
by Gaggero.
in the underlying
[T]he
elements
limited
representation
testimony
to this case,
and
and on behalf
agreed,
of
stating:
contain
both personal
of
and
business.
Praske is the only trustee of the trust
and foundation
involved
in the motion.
He is
one of only two officers
in PCM.
everything
resistance
wishes
Praske
at Gaggero's
or hesitance.
PCM
without
is also the
registered
agent for service of process
the business
entities.
KPC's evidence
that Mr. Gaggero's
under
penalty
own accountant
of perjury
pays
at each of
shows
testified
and
which
is more evidence
of alter ego
(RT 18:10-25.)
Appellants
the evidence
the Alter
before
the court
Ego Parties
Specifically,
"to protect
do not dispute
the court
100 percent
were
found
that Gaggero
established
completely
controlled
the litigation,
(RT 18:10-28,
of Mr. Gaggero's
31
assets,
of Gaggero
"only
both personal
and
and
RT 19:1-5.)
interest"
was
and business"
(RT 18:12-14),
ultimately
all "gains
flow[ed]
without
Gaggero
and losses
through
the Alter
Mr. Gaggero's
Ego Parties
tax returns"
"wouldn't
were
plan,
(RT 18:22-24),
even
exist"
"one
[and]
(RT 19:1-2),
the same"
(RT
19:5).
Moreover,
there
"asset
manager"
assets
in his estate
from
of the Trusts,
plan.
his personal
manager
CT3 439:15-25.)
to improve
financing,
designing
transferred
the asset,
197:1-6.)
issues,
ultimate
Gaggero
the disposition
be retained."
145:15-20,
"always
(CT1
pull cash
Gaggero
directly
was
the estate
plan.
(CT2
estate
215:16-28.)
plan,
Praske
recommendations.
(CT2
to providing
to Gaggero.
advice
that once
was "absolutely"
Parties
litigation
implemented.
Thus,
the evidence
were
essentially
throug!!
Gaggero.
In fact,
testified
the assets
150:3-5.)
they should
that he
in the trust or
According
to Praske,
to real estate
followed
215: l 6-28.)
held
investments
Praske's
role was
Gaggero's
relating
limited
accountant
to the estate
plan,
233:18-234:18.)
before
the court
represented
it is instructive
32
in
Gaggero's
234: l 3-15.)
a decision
(CT2
and virtually
Gaggero
and best
With respect
(CT2
was clear
140:1 I-
always
made
(CT1
with respect
214:11-13,
Gaggero
to the asset,
and whether
against
(CT1
"the decision-maker"
for Gaggero's
confirmed
money
buy or sell
as to the highest
CT3 440:6-14.)
to...
of the asset."
of the assets
to borrow
of"refinancing,
decisions
"determination
him the
CT2 196:24-28,
any improvement
disposition
made
and property
appointed
in charge
making
overseeing
his assets
145:10-24,
was
that as the
control
Praske
(CT1
Gaggero
insurance
some
the court
Gaggero
In this capacity,
the asset,
before
had complete
19, CT2
evidence
Gaggero
After
portfolio
of the Trusts
dealing
was ample
Ego
in the underlying
that Gaggero
is
it
or the court,
making
appellants
reached
because
rejected
the Trusts
of the [trust]
Cal.App.2d
776, 783.)
and should
(Heifetz
"Under
(2002)
provides
intended"
by this court
trust instrument,
language
to create
That
(1957)
the
comers
147
or
by examining
the
an irrevocable
1194, 1209.)
Probate
a trust is expressly
as well.
the "four
made
by the settlor."
trust.
(Crook
v.
Code
section
15400
irrevocable
(Prob.
Code,
by the
15400.)
Here,
judgment
appellants'
because
the Trusts
argument
a motion
to dismiss
the Alter
are irrevocable
Ego Parties.
33
cannot
be added
is unavailing
because
Gaggero's
personally
be
soundly
the Presumption
of America
by KPC
cannot
was
by examining
v. Bank
from
95 Cal.App.4th
that "[u]nless
of the Trusts
must be determined
and determining
[the settlor]
for inspection
This position
be rejected
California
of a right to revoke
trust instrument
further
are "irrevocable."
of a trust is determined
instrument."
nonexistence
Conteras
Appellants
Failed to Overcome
Trusts are Revocable.
Revocability
whether
assert
available
Despite
appeal
aggrieved
to the
they
on the basis
by the order
Foundation
representation
court
B.
voids
to disregard
assuming
as a matter
such trusts
the reach
of their
of such property.
Probate
of law.
creditors
Trusts
Are
from
are irrevocable,
trusts
can never
Creditor's
appellants'
be reached
law prohibits
self-settled
individuals
from placing
their property
provides
167 E3d
interest
470, 473.)
that
is subject
to a provision
restraining
the voluntary
or involuntary
transfer
of the settlor's interest, the
restraint
is invalid
against
creditors
of the settlor.
the restraint
on transfer
the validity
trust created
instrument
pay income
education
or
The invalidity
of
does not affect
is the beneficiary
by the settlor
provides
34
of the beneficiary
discretion
of income
of a
or principal
or support
the trustee
the amount
transferees
of the trust.
to determine
or principal
trusts
or
is
and
beyond
the bounties
gives
and the
California
while
15304
Protected
(In reMoses
Code
Their
is of no consequence,
of an irrevocable
to prevent
l'Tew Crippled
this argument.
arguendo
v. Angel
451,459.)
are irrevocable
Even
incorrect
72 Cal.App.4th
was correct
contention
(1999)
America
or
if the settlor
or in part,
the settlor
to the extent
the power
is subject
of the power
to revoke
to the claims
of revocation
during
the trust in
of creditors
of
the lifetime
of the
settlor.
Moreover,
of a trust,
the trust's
terminated
a debtor
protective
( 1961)
(1994)
Conover
_ng
when
holds
l 91 Cal.App.2d
26 Cal.App.4th
This
debtor
now holds
beneficiary,
legal
a trust relationship
other
the Trusts
nothing
free of trust.
17 l, 180; A m mco
because
2d Trusts
1ton, Inc. v.
99, subd.
(5), com.
of merger-the
in his capacity
are vested
(Hill v.
Ornamental
of the doctrine
interests
interests
interests
the trial
court
noted
that even
more
the wishes
these
trust assets
as the trustee.
in one person,
there
as the
When
is no longer
of the property
as any
person.
Here,
court
happens
the equitableand
than
findings,
Gaggero
that Gaggero
in the Trusts.
though
a mere
ofGaggero.
found
Praske
"rubber
exercised
(RT 18:10-28,
was technically
stamp"
(RT 22:19-22,
35
RT 19:l-5.)
the trustee,
RT 23:13-16,
full control
trustee
RT 24:8-9.)
of the Trusts.
over
The
he was
to go against
Under
Thus,
the
25 is misplaced
of an irrevocable
or other
Schwarzkopf
be created
Schwarzkopf
supra,
irrevocable
supra,
of the trusts
claim.
of defrauding
(In re
["A trust may
policy"].)
in In re
(In re Schwarzkopf
191 Cal.App.4th
as irrevocable
It
to irrevocable
public
trusts.
rule
at p. 497.)
had no bearing
on the
Its Sound
At the hearing
David
Esquibias,
notice
RT 4:1-4.)
in written
appellants'
the argument
jurisdiction
to provide
379-414,
Discretion.
on the Motion,
raised
had exclusive
required
raised
the general
15203
or against
141
The Court's
Refusal
to Continue
the Hearing
to Allow Limited
and Conditional
Production
of the Trust Documents
Was
Within
(CT3
Code,
were
(2006)
to a creditors
at 1037; Prob.
Greenspan,
made
states
ego doctrine
and Greenspan
the status
simply
held to be subject
ego analysis
5.
court
626 E3d
alter
is illegal
the trusts
of the alter
persons
supra,
Laycock
the application
It is well-settled
Indeed,
because
v. Hammer
opposition
The Court:
to the Motion,
a reason,
that apparently
of the Trusts.
offered
is there
a reason
an argument
now
goes to
36
appearing
was not
no explanation:
jurisdiction?
Mr. Esquibias:
counsel,
to the beneficiaries
questioned
Is there
retained
of the Motion
When
newly
that I
for the
purposeof arguingjurisdiction
andnotice. I have.noexplanation
as to why it wasn't
opposition.
(RT 4:3-5:7,
After
emphasis
raising
added.)
acknowledging
their opposition
in the
papers,
the arguments
averred
The Court:
Well,
why?
these
are essential
they could
Mr. Esquibias:
is, if
arguments,
back
The Court:
the moving
Is it anything
though,
why
so that
not respond
to them?
him from
(RT 5:11-13.)
So my question
in
to
party.
other
than ambush
at this point?
(RT 5:14-20.)
In addition
trial court noted
to appellants'
that there
by Mr. Esquibias,
(RT 6:22-28,
provide
continuing
confidentiality
information,
RT 10:26-28,
the existence
of beneficiaries
RT 11:14-17.)
In response,
relating
order,
been
deemed
RT 11:13,
contingent
IT]his
percolating
fundamental
timely,
the assertions
entitled
counsel
the
made
to notice.
offered
to
to the beneficiaries,
an agreement
was necessary.
(3) obtaining
on a limited
(RT 7:3-8,
scope
a
of
RT 9:24-10:5,
RT 12:1-24.)
where
these
unfairness
all these
and saying
contingent
is a situation
through
notice
RT I1:1,
Appellants'
to the trusts
(2) giving
as appellants
the arguments
to support
RT 7:28-8:12,
the heating,
to raise
was no evidence
including
information
failure
hoops
to making
rejected
issues
have
and there
is a
KPCjump
to collect
the judgment
X, Y and Z,
37
further
or doesn't
appellants
rejected
make
v. Ohiolndem.
does
argument.
Guardino
(1995)
Co. (1999)
Clara
discretion,
showing
Busick
which
6.
The
Court's
Not
Based
Speciously,
court
on their
that appellants
rejection
cannot
the court
Authority
be disturbed
(People
744,
is a matter
"on appeal
of
v.
was within
its discretion
to produce
of Misconduct.
contend
to deny
upon
a clear
Wks. v.
a misconduct.
Trust
was because
38
evidence
Argument
Was
In characterizing
to accept
appellants'
trust argument
as a refusal
Pub.
the
749.)
of the hearing
appellants
within
except
ex rel. Dept.
on a Finding
of the argument
The court
at oral
Transportation
of the Irrevocable
committed
or presented
55, 66-67.)
Rejection
irrevocable
raised
on appeal.
of a continuance
of discretion."
for a continuance
the court
(RT 26:6-27:15.)
Local
that
259 Cal.App.2d
Accordingly,
request
County
or denying
of an abuse
(1968)
raised
the Motion,
not properly
70 Cal.App.4th
points
11 Cal.4th
The granting
court's
or theories
counsel
Concluding
foundation.
not consider
(Santa
to litigate
Mr. Praske
new
(RT 26:9-10.)
as lacking
rule, issues
appeal
in his opposition."
arguments
for when
As a general
Inc.
I am not responsible
the untimely
before
stated
found
as
irrevocable,appellantsobscurethreeimportantfactsrelatedto their
argument.
First, the trial court did not rejectany evidence,becauseappellants
hadnot producedany evidenceatthehearingfor the notion that the trusts
are irrevocable.Appellantsflatly refusedto producethe trust documentsat
the hearing,eventhough counselhada copy of the trust documentson him.
(RT 9:7-10.)
Second,the court rejectedappellants'requestfor a continuanceonly
after providing appellants'counselan opportunityto explainwhy the trust
argumentwaswithheld until the dayof thehearing. Counselfor appellants
wasunableto offer anyexcusefor failing to includethe argumentin
oppositionpapers. (RT4:3-5:7.) The consequence
ofappeUants'failure to
properly providesupportfor their oppositionto the Motion wasthatthe
court did not find the argumentpersuasive.(RT 6:18-26.) The
rejection
of the argument
Third,
appellants'
conditional
and limited
9:24-10:5,
RT 10:26-28,
make
an unequivocal
a continuance
production
as to the scope
the parties
argument
courts
order
is irrelevant
do not review
correct
rejection
because
there
the reasons
on any theory
reasoning
may have
been
& Liab.
of appellants'
order
amending
the judgment
as to the scope
of the
even though
6, 15-16.)
lnc.
39
Appellate
- an appealed
As discussed
trust
way.
decision
(J.B. Aguerre,
59 Cal.App.4th
did not
- only requesting
irrevocable
erroneous.
They
RT
order.
will be affirmed,
stares
RT 12:1-24.)
and confer
was
(RT 7:3-8,
to meet
to a confidentiality
of the production.
RT 11:1, RT 11:13,
sanction."
offer to produce
offer to produce
to allow
subject
purported
court's
above,
of law, preclude
of the Trusts.
Guam.
the
an
7.
The Court's
Exercise
the Trustee
Probate
of Jurisdictions
to the Judgment
Code
section
(a)
court
The superior
over
concurrent
having
jurisdiction
has exclusive
concerning
court having
the
jurisdiction
iudsdiction
of the following:
(1)
Actions and proceedings
determine
the existence
of trusts.
(2)
against
Actions
creditors
(3)
(Prob.
Code,
17000,
emphasis
Thus,
the statute
clearly
probate
court,
debtors
of trusts,
appellants
jurisdiction
According
to appellants,
ego liability
argument
proceedings
affairs
designated
authority
trustee,
arrangements.
added.)
(Stewart
the superior
trustees
acted
court
of the terms
v. Towse
4O
or
of the trust,
Here,
of trusts."
to determine
authority
for their
to judicial
Rather,
changes
internal
trust
in a
or the administration
(1988)
to a
of its jurisdiction
affairs
amounted
affairs."
deviation
creditors
has authority
to the judgment
acts,
outside
cite no legal
"internal
as opposed
the "internal
Appellants
other
court,
by or against
involving
the trusts'
modification
successor
and proceedings
provides
the trusts
concerning
concern
actions
only a probate
of a trust.
that adding
of trusts.
over proceedings
argue
by or
or proceedings
erroneously
on the ground
alter
Other
trustees
to
and proceedings
or debtors
involving
to Add
as follows:
to this part
jurisdiction
of proceedings
internal affairs of trusts.
Co)
the Trusts
Was Proper.
17000 provides
The superior
over
over
203 Cal.App.3d
of the trust's
financial
425,429-4300
There
Is No Merit
2008
to Appellants'
Statement
and
the Alter
Ego
KPC
Is Now
Bound
Appellants
&proof
falsely
Parties
after the
Alter
this argument
litigation
to recover
proof
at the hearing,
That
Separate,
Gaggero
Ego Parties
the Trial
Gaggero
or That
a Finding.
that because
as conclusive
That
Concluded
Are Financially
by Such
claim
Contention
of Decision
in the underlying
rejected
until
was granted.
Court's
burden
trusts
failed
damages
are separate.
pointing
41
to meet
on behalf
separate,
his
of
but
expressly
in its
lawsuit
drafted
as there
that their
the declarations.
is nothing
these
declarations.
KPC,
appellants
drafts
a declaration
Moreover,
"binding
judicial
that signed
claim
to KPC,
put, testimony
admission"
under
at KPC
if the declarations
is somehow
penalty
pointing
is without
authority
Simply
were separate
Appellants'
in the record
in the declaration
is no legal
finances
out that
any foundation
in fact drafted
were
drafted
that an attorney
by
who
bound
by the statements
of perjury
by the client.
made
There
a proposition.
of Praske
on KPC.
or Gaggero
They
the declaration.
42
are binding
9.
KPC's
Motion
Was Timely
by Judicial
was an improper
55 month
Estoppel.
Appellants
KPC
contend
in bringing
argument.
the Motion,
Appellants
A court
486,
Conf.
available
its judgment
508; Hall
Center
complaint
Gaggero's
in other parties,
entry
of judgment.
legal
let alone
Just as importantly,
legal
delay
legal
the alter
Moreover,
underlying
of the judgment.
ignore
in 2008
That
affirmed
the judgment
6, 2010,
B207567)
in full.
judgment
until
December
obtaining
Gaggero's
appeal
28, 2010.
KPC
discovery.
of the underlying
was
was simply
no
to the case.
KPC
Ego Parties,
prior
to
to the court's
in the
had no practical
Accordingly,
or basis
there
reason
or
was no
and no waiver.
the fact that Gaggero's
in an automatic
until May
(Gaggero
opn.].)
supra,
1555.)
had no obligation
and KPC
resulted
stay remained
[nonpub.
traditional
the Alter
KPC
appellants
judgment
relief.
lawsuit,'
the
Inc. v.
the Motion
as parties
malpractice
ego issue,
1551,
case, there
Ego Parties
lawsuit,
to litigate
in raising
of the
(Greenspan,
supporting
malpractice
obligation
by
designate
& Baker,
41 Cal.App.4th
any affirmative
bring
underlying
Haisley
to seek
in a waiver
after judgment.
and information
was defending
resulted
so it will properly
Goodhue,
Bd. (1996)
testimony
prior
reason
amend
19l Cal.App.4th
While
delay
are wrong.
may
real defendants
Marconi
that there
115.)
(CT2
judgment
43
when
this court
Petersen
& Clarke
Consequently,
to enforce
291-306,
of the
stay of enforcement
2010,
v. Knapp,
appeal
a final
after
its judgment
CT2 322-354.)
that required
(May
through
It was
KPC to wait
Planning
in California
Not surprisingly,
Parties
"would
on specific
Gaggero's
threaten
legal
is nothing
wrong
purposes.
This argument
attention
attempt
from
apply
argument
the integrity
authority
All
heavily
planning
the Alter
Ego
in California"
on the generic
is thin
notion
that there
tying up assets
for estate
planning
a red herring
to divert
the court's
Gaggero
to explain
the application
the alter
about
Undermines
that adding
of estate
and relies
or illegal
Order
Is Baseless.
is simply
why an estate
of alter
plan should
ego liability
ego doctrine
be immune
of trusts
no
as a matter
or distinguish
in the context
makes
those
or other
cases
of law
that
estate
planning
amending
the
vehicles.
CONCLUSION
For all the forgoing
judgment
DATED:
December
reasons,
Ego Parties
19, 2013
should
order
be atTu-med.
Respectfully
submitted,
MILLER
LLP
RANDALL
STEVEN
Attorneys
A. MILS
S. WANG
for Defendants
Respondents
and
KNAPP, PETERSEN
& CLARKE,
STEVEN
RAY GARCIA,
STEPHEN
HARRIS,
44
and ANDRE
JARDINI
M.
CERTI_CATE
Pursuant
undersigned
exclusive
words
counsel
of tables,
in accordance
undersigned
Dated:
to the requirements
relies
December
of record
proof
of California
hereby
of service,
certifies
Rules
of Court,
word
Rule
count
consists
count
upon
within
which
19, 2013
Steven
the
this brief,
of a total of 12,747
this certification.
8.204(c)(1),
S. Wang
the
PROOF
OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150,
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201.
On December _, 2013, I served the within documents:
RESPONDENTS'
BRIEF
[]
by transmitting
via facsimile the document(s)
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
[]
[]
[]
[]
set
at the address(es)
SERVICE
of the
the envelope/package
LIST
on December
California.
date or postage
SERVICE
LIST
Attorneys
for PACIFIC COAST
MANAGEMENT,
INC, 511 OFW LP,
GINGERBREAD
COURT LP,
MALIBU BROAD BEACH LP,
MARINA
GLENCOE
LP, BLU
HOUSE LLC, BOARDWALK
SUNSET LLC, AND JOSEPH
PRASKE AS THE TRUSTEE
OF THE
GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO
TRUST, AND AQUASANTE
FOUNDATION
A. HOFFMAN
Phone:
(310) 442-3600
Fax:
(310) 442-4600
Email: eah('_,hoffmanlaw.com