Domestic Partnerships in California

California Statutes

CA A.B. 205

Domestic Partnership law evolved in California as a means of providing same-sex couples access to the benefits and protections of the law afforded to married couples. After modest efforts at the municipal level and numerous failed attempts in the state legislature, California authorized legal domestic partnerships in 1999 with the passage of California Assembly Bill 205 (“A.B. 205”), which afforded two unmarried and unrelated adults of the same-sex to file a domestic partnership with the Secretary of State, bestowing on the each partner “the same rights, protections, and benefits...responsibilities, obligations, and duties...as are granted to and imposed upon spouses,” including equal parental and survivorship rights, and forbade discrimination against them by any public agency (with a few exceptions.)

Opposite-Sex Couples

At the time AB 205 was passed, in the interest of preserving traditional marriage, the law restricted opposite-sex couples from registering for domestic partnerships unless both were over the age of 62. In 2012, that rule was amended to provide that only one Domestic Partner in an opposite-sex couple had to be at least 62 years old.

Under California Senate Bill 30 (“S.B. 30”), passed in July 2019, there is no longer an age requirement on opposite-sex couples to register as Domestic Partners in California. Thus, effective January 1, 2020, opposite-sex couples can enter into registered Domestic Partnerships in California with all of the same protections and obligations as same-sex couples.

Current Domestic Partnership Law

California Family Code § 297 provides that in order for two people to establish a domestic partnership in California, both individuals must file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the CA Secretary of State, at which time they must both be:

• At least 18 years old, although under Family Code § 297.1, individuals under 18 years old may in certain cases be permitted to enter a domestic partnership upon approval by a Court (see below);
• Unmarried and not members of an unterminated domestic partnership
• Capable of consent;
• and either
• Members of the same sex, or
• If members of opposite sexes, at least one partner must: Be 62 or older, or Qualify for old-age retirement benefits under U.S. Code Title 42, §402.

NOTE: Effective January 1, 2020, this provision will not apply and opposite-sex couples can enter into registered Domestic Partnerships in California with all of the same protections and obligations as same-sex couples.

Domestic Partnership and Minors

California Family Code § 297.1 permits an individual under 18 years of age (a “minor”) may enter into Domestic Partnerships upon a Court order:

• After the Court’s review of:
  • Written consent from the parent or guardian of the minor, unless the Court determines the minor has no parent or guardian, or the parent / guardian is unable to consent;
  • A written investigatory report from the Family Court confirming an absence of coercion, neglect, abuse, undue influence or fraud by the prospective domestic partners or their families (including, where applicable, personal interviews with the minor’s parent or guardian);
• And that includes:
  • The birth date and gender of the minor
  • Notice to minors of their legal rights and available public resources
  • A requirement (at the Court’s discretion) that the prospective Domestic Partners attend counseling as to the rights and responsibilities involved in a Domestic Partnership, though they shall not be required to attend any religious counseling.

Rights and Responsibilities of Registered Domestic Partners

The Domestic Partnership laws in California have been amended a number of times to expand and clarify the rights and obligations of registered Domestic Partners in comparison to the rights of married Californians.

California Family Code § 297.5 provides that registered Domestic Partners (including those who registered before amendments to the Domestic Partnership law) have the same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations, and duties as married spouses under all California law (including statutes, regulations, court rules, policies and common law.)

The rights, protections and benefits of Domestic Partners include (inter alia):

• Survivorship rights
• Community Property rights in accordance with California’s community property laws (property acquired by either Partner after enforceable registration of the Notice of Domestic Partnership is deemed community property, with certain exceptions)
• Rights to medical visitation and decision-making
• Child custody rights; generally speaking:
  • Children born to either Domestic Partner after valid registration of the Domestic Partnership or adopted by either Domestic Partner are deemed to be children of both Partners.
  • Absent adoption, a child born to one Domestic Partner before registration of the Domestic Partnership is not legally the child of the other Domestic Partner.
• The same rights as married couples to be free from discrimination (including by public agencies) on the basis of their domestic partnership.

Domestic Partners’ responsibilities, obligations, and duties include (inter alia):

• Liability to their partner’s creditors
• Note: Partners may, but are not required, to change their names to be in conformity with one another.

Whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

No Federal Rights or Recognition in other States

Federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships. Accordingly, domestic partners do not have a right to receive their partner’s federal benefits such as Social Security, tax benefits or liabilities.

Jurisdictions outside of California

California Family Code § 299.2 provides that same-sex legal unions (other than marriages) from jurisdictions outside of California will be recognized as legal Domestic Partnerships in California if they were valid in the jurisdiction where formed, and deemed “substantially equivalent” to a Domestic Partnership as defined by California law. However, many states do not have Domestic Partnership laws, and many states will not recognize the rights of Domestic Partners legally registered under California law.

Termination of Registered Domestic Partnerships under California Law

California Family Code § 299 governs the termination of Domestic Partnerships.

Domestic Partnerships in existence five years or less

Under California Family Code § 299(a), registered Domestic Partnerships in existence for less than five years can be terminated upon consent by both Partners by filing with the Secretary of State a “Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership” signed by both partners, provided:

• There are no children born after the Domestic Partnership registration or adopted by either Partner;
• Neither Partner is pregnant;
• The Partners do not own real property together, with the exception of the lease of a residence occupied by either party where:
  • The lease does not contain an option to purchase; and
  • The lease terminates within one year from the date of filing of the Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership.
• There are no unpaid obligations owed by the Partners together in excess of $4,000 (a statutory limit established by California Family Code § 2400 (governing marital divorce) including automobile leases and adjustable to inflation);
• The fair market value of community property assets (as defined by the statute) is less than $25,000 (established by California Family Code § 2400 and adjustable to inflation);
• The parties execute an agreement establishing the division of assets and liabilities, including all information and documents needed to effectuate the agreement;
• The parties waive any rights to support by the other domestic partner; and
• The parties have read and understand a brochure prepared by the Secretary of State describing the requirements, nature, and effect of terminating a domestic partnership.

Effective Date: The partnership is terminated six months after filing the Notice of Termination provided neither party files a Notice of Revocation of the Termination.

All other Domestic Partnerships are governed by the same laws, courts and procedures applicable to marital divorce in California, including (inter alia):

• The right to petition the Court for termination and division of assets;
• Laws implicating community property and spousal support; and
• Laws governing child custody and support.

California Case Law

“A party's earnings during marriage or a registered domestic partnership are community property.” [See Fam. C. §297.5, 760; Marriage of Harrison (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1216, 1226.) 56-2018-00514772-PR-TR-OXN - In The Matter Of James Ivy, Jr. 1995 Trust (7/25/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2018-00514772-PR-TR-OXN/in-the-matter-of-james-ivy-jr-1995-trust/20190725dc4842).

Survivorship

“A cause of action for wrongful death may be asserted by the decedent’s surviving spouse or domestic partner. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 377.60(a). “Domestic partner” means a person who, at the time of the decedent’s death, was the domestic partner of the decedent in a registered domestic partnership established in accordance with subdivision (b) of section 297 of the Family Code.” Maxine Mariah Medina et al vs. City of El Monte et al, BC583814 (12/27/2016)(https://trellis.law/ruling/BC583814/maxine-mariah-medina-et-al-vs-city-of-el-monte-et-al/2016122735afa4)

“A ‘Surviving Spouse’ does not include ‘A person whose marriage to, or registered domestic partnership with, the decedent has been dissolved or annulled, unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage or registered domestic partnership, the person is married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with, the decedent at the time of death.’ (Prob. Code, § 78.)” Estate Of Melvin Earnest Lamar, 17PR00290 (8/14/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/17PR00290/estate-of-melvin-earnest-lamar/2017081452cd26).

“The Complaint alleges Plaintiff Nora Guzman is the surviving domestic partner of decedent Jamie Rubio. (Compl., ¶ 1.) It is immaterial that the word “registered” is missing from this factual allegation. When construed liberally, Plaintiff Nora Guzman’s factual allegation that she is the domestic partner of decedent Jamie Rubio is interpreted to mean that she is a partner in a registered domestic partnership. Further, Plaintiff Nora Guzman does not have the burden to prove the registered domestic partnership by attaching a declaration to the complaint. Such an evidentiary showing is not necessary in response to a demurrer, even though it may be needed to oppose a motion for summary judgment standard.” Natalie Rubio, et al vs. Genie Industries, Inc., et al., 19STCV07635 (3/5/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/19STCV07635/natalie-rubio--et-al-vs-genie-industries-inc--et-al/201906286a0f13).

“Persons entitled to sue for wrongful death is governed by statute. Such persons with standing include “decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession.” Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60(a). Subpart (b) of the statute states that whether or not a person is qualified under subpart (a), a “putative spouse” does have standing to sue. The term is defined as “the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.” Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60. Plaintiff contends he is a “putative registered domestic partner.”

“As Defendants observe, there is a split of authority as to whether the putative spouse doctrine applies to domestic partnerships. Ferry v. De Longhi America Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017) 276 F.Supp.3d 940, 950 Defendants argue that the court should follow Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1158, which decided that a partner in a domestic partnership could not petition to dissolve the domestic partnership absent formal registration of the domestic partnership. In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis & Arriaga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1000, concluded that formal registration was not required so long as the partner had a reasonable and good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State, entitling that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place. Id at 1003. Thus, there is support for Plaintiff’s theory that the “putative marriage” doctrine applies to domestic partnerships. Steven Hawkins et al vs. Phillip Cabasso, MD et al, BC658421 (4/19/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC658421/steven-hawkins-et-al-vs-phillip-cabasso-md-et-al/2019090362e508).

“Defendants argue that even if the putative registered domestic partnership doctrine exists (which it clearly does under Ellis & Arriaga), it should not apply to Plaintiff since he and decedent were not eligible to register as domestic partners in the first instance. Section 377.60 defines a “domestic partnership” as one that has been registered in accordance with Fam Code § 297(b). Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60. Section 297 of the Family Code requires that both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and meet all required criteria. Fam. Code § 297. To qualify for a domestic partnership, the couple must be either members of the same sex, or one or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.” Family Code § 297. Having not met those statutory requirements, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was never eligible for domestic partnership as he and decedent were not among the class of persons eligible to register.

“However, requiring that Plaintiff meet the formal statutory requirements for domestic partnership ignores that the wrongful death statute confers standing to those who have a reasonable belief in the validity of their marriage or in this case, their domestic partnership as stated in Ellis and Arriaga, supra. Steven Hawkins et al vs. Phillip Cabasso, MD et al, BC658421 (4/19/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC658421/steven-hawkins-et-al-vs-phillip-cabasso-md-et-al/2019090362e508).

“The putative spouse doctrine is a judicial doctrine developed to enable a party to an invalid marriage to enjoy certain of the civil benefits of marriage if he or she “believed in good faith that the marriage was valid.” Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113, 1120–1121. The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the expectations of innocent parties and to achieve results that are fair, equitable and just.Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113, 1122. Accordingly, the focus is Mr. Hawkins’ subjective belief and the facts and circumstances he knew with respect to the validity of the domestic partnership. To require statutory compliance, which is an objective inquiry into the validity of the marriage, avoids Ceja’s holding that a subjective standard is applied. Steven Hawkins et al vs. Phillip Cabasso, MD et al, BC658421 (4/19/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC658421/steven-hawkins-et-al-vs-phillip-cabasso-md-et-al/2019090362e508).

“Defendants argue that the wrongful death statute confers standing to limited people. It is a legislatively created right, and the Legislature is not required to extend that right to every conceivable class of persons who might suffer injury from the death of another. Holguin v. Flores (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 428, 437–438. The statute is “conclusive, unless it appears beyond rational doubt that an arbitrary discrimination between persons or classes similarly situated has been without any reasonable cause therefor.” Id. The court observed that section 377.60 “grants the right to sue for wrongful death to surviving spouses, surviving putative spouses and surviving “domestic partners” but not to surviving members of unmarried couples of opposite sex.” Id. Holguin found that the opposite-sex couple involved were neither domestic or married partners, but “fell in the category of ‘unmarried cohabitants ... without any rights.’” Holguin at 437. Holguin is distinguishable on its facts. The case involved a couple who had lived together for three years and shared “an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring. They were jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses. Neither Holguin nor Booth were married or a member of a domestic partnership or related by blood. Each was over the age of 18 and mentally competent.” Holguin v. Flores (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 428, 431. The case did not consider the surviving spouse’s subjective reasonable belief in the domestic partnership. The issue on appeal, as raised by the plaintiff was a constitutional one, not whether the surviving spouse could sue under circumstances giving that spouse a reasonable and good faith belief that the domestic partnership was valid. Holguin at 431. ... “All Defendants have demonstrated that triable issues of fact remain with respect to Plaintiff’s reasonable belief about the validity of his domestic partnership. The parties dispute whether what happened when Plaintiff spoke with his employer about setting up a domestic partnership actually occurred.” Steven Hawkins et al vs. Phillip Cabasso, MD et al, BC658421 (4/19/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC658421/steven-hawkins-et-al-vs-phillip-cabasso-md-et-al/2019090362e508).

“Plaintiffs have cited no authority to support their explanation of why…[defendant’s] domestic partnership status or sexual orientation will have any bearing on her liability, or even made any attempt to explain why those issues have any bearing on their ability to collect any ultimate judgment.”

“The real property at 9 Isabel Ave was placed in joint tenancy on 08/15/03. (Deed handed to the court on 02/27/14.) Leonard and John filed a declaration of domestic partnership with the Secretary of State on 4/14/06...Leonard died on 12/12/07...Leonard's 07/20/79 will gives his entire estate, "both real and personal", to John... In Re The JWB Trust, Dated September 24, 2012 And Trustor John W Boyle, 56-2013-00446107-PR-TR-OXN, (4/3/2014) (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2013-00446107-PR-TR-OXN/in-re-the-jwb-trust-dated-september-24-2012-and-trustor-john-w-boyle/20140403f3f58a).

The court acknowledges that, subject to creditors claims, decedent's probate estate will likely pour over into decedent's trust, but that is not a valid reason to deny probate. All pour-over wills have that characteristic. Decedent could have established a registered domestic partnership and petitioner could have proceeded by spousal property petition, but they apparently elected not to do so. In Re The 1998 Rancho Maracaibo Trust Dated 5/11/1998, 56-2014-00448069-PR-TR-OXN (3/6/2014) (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2014-00448069-PR-TR-OXN/in-re-the-1998-rancho-maracaibo-trust-dated-5111998/2014030643eaf9).

The statutes governing beneficiary designations should be "construed to effectuate the employee's intent as to whom his beneficiary should be." (Coughlin v. Board of Administration (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 70, 72; see also Watenpaugh v. State Teachers Retirement ((1959) 51 Cal.2d 675.).) The Beneficiary Designation executed by Dr. Wilson indicates his intent for Mr. Konou to be the beneficiary of his CalPERS death benefits. Although the Beneficiary Designation was statutorily revoked, it remains valid evidence of Dr. Wilson's intent and serves as a written modification of the 2006 Domestic Partnership Agreement under Sections 14 and 19.1. Petitioners have not met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Konou knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the CalPERS death benefits, as required by Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Association. ((1985) 39 Cal.3d 374.) Stephen M. Wilson et al vs. Board of Administration of the California Public, CPF13513190 (10/28/2013) (https://trellis.law/ruling/CPF13513190/stephen-m-wilson-et-al-vs-board-of-administration-of-the-california-public/20131028eb745d).

Domestic Partnership included in Spousal Testamentary Privilege under Evidence Law

“[A] spouse … , whether or not a party, has a privilege during the marital or domestic partnership relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he or she claims the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between him or her and the other spouse while they were spouses.” (Evid. Code, §980.) Scuderia Capital Partners, LLC vs. Eric Po-Chi Shen, et al, EC066100 (2/23/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/EC066100/scuderia-capital-partners-llc-vs-eric-po-chi-shen-et-al/201802238796e5). See also, Mohammad Rahmani, Et Al. V. Robert Bower, 2018-CV-331531 (6/27/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/2018-CV-331531/mohammad-rahmani-et-al-v-robert-bower/20190627b0746f); Sheila Gianelli Vs Mark Schwartz, 18CV02660 (11/27/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/18CV02660/sheila-gianelli-vs-mark-schwartz/20191127b35e9b); Jane Doe vs. County of Los Angeles, BC663829 (4/20/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC663829/jane-doe-vs-county-of-los-angeles/20180420c6f272); Maria Concepcion Rosales Irasava vs. Pharmavite LLC et al, BC595706 (5/19/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC595706/maria-concepcion-rosales-irasava-vs-pharmavite-llc-et-al/2017051982a4fa); John Doe vs. County of Los Angeles, BC664140 (3/26/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC664140/john-doe-vs-county-of-los-angeles/20180326fd6cfb); Risher Vs. R Bros. Corp., 30-2017-00948934-CU-OE-CJC (6/20/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/30-2017-00948934-CU-OE-CJC/risher-vs-r-bros-corp/201906202b6600); Beatriz Liliana Collier vs. David J French PhD LMFT et al, BC654432 (12/11/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC654432/beatriz-liliana-collier-vs-david-j-french-phd-lmft-et-al/201812110edb2a); Moises Estrada Jr vs. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., BC608847 (8/14/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC608847/moises-estrada-jr-vs-stefan-merli-plastering-co-inc/201808143e6f83); Aerovironment Inc Vs. Gabriel Torres, 56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA (7/21/2016) (California law governing spousal privilege under Domestic Partnership identical same as that of Washington State, applicable in this case.) (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA/aerovironment-inc-vs-gabriel-torres/201607213a3cce).

Evidence of Domestic Partnership

No Domestic Partnership Absent Registration

Allegation of facts suggesting Domestic Partnership insufficient to establish a Domestic Partnership without valid registration. Bartolomeio Sgambati vs. David Huynh, 18BBCV00016 (4/19/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/18BBCV00016/bartolomeio-sgambati-vs-david-huynh/20190419b3541b).

Allegation under Oath is Evidence to Establish Equity Rights

“Additionally, there is the issue that Colchico did not tell the truth in her declarations. She declared under penalty of perjury in her original declaration that Greeley stayed in her home when he visited the children. She declared under penalty of perjury in her original declaration that Greeley and she never had a domestic partnership. Yet, she retracted that testimony in her Reply declaration, after seeing proof that she did, in fact, fill out a domestic partnership affidavit in 2006, which stated (again under penalty of perjury) that:

‘We are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely and are responsible for our common welfare.

We are “financially interdependent” as that term is defined in the D District’s definition of “domestic partner,” which is incorporated by this reference…’

“In sum, the paper trail establishes enough evidence to show partial performance, which is not merely the payment of money. This evidence also is sufficient to show a probability of prevailing on one of Greeley’s real property claims (e.g., partition, quiet title) since Greeley can establish an equitable interest in the property, which is not barred by the statute of frauds.” John Greely vs. Kristen Colchico, et al, MSC16-01173 (7/13/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/MSC16-01173/john-greeley-vs-kristen-colchico-et-al/2017071360fbbe).

Inclusion of Domestic Partnership Evidence Struck as Being Included Only To Prejudice Jury

“It appears to the Court that the sole purpose for inserting these matters into the complaint was the hope that, in getting the complaint before the jury, they would rouse either the homophobic biases or anti-immigration ire of potential jurors in this action. There was no need to make any allegation of these issues for any purpose in the complaint. The Court will therefore strike them from the pleading.” Ward Raisin Et Al Vs Kimberly Sweney Et Al, 1382785 (4/25/2012) (https://trellis.law/ruling/1382785/ward-raisin-et-al-vs-kimberly-sweney-et-al/20120425e50280).

Unregistered Domestic Partnership Agreement as Evidence of Implied Contract

“Plaintiff presents the signed and notarized declaration of domestic partnership, which states that the parties were in a “committed spouse-like relationship” and that the parties “are jointly responsible for each other’s financial obligations.” (Armstrong Decl. Ex. A (B)(1)&(4).) This evidence shows that there is a triable issue regarding whether or not the parties entered into an implied contract.” Armstrong vs. Daly, MSC15-01451 (12/15/2016) (https://trellis.law/ruling/MSC15-01451/armstrong-vs-daly/201612157cdfdf).

“To prevent prejudice to a party’s rights that may result from entry of a status only judgment (e.g., health care coverage, retirement and survivor benefits, probate surviving spouse/domestic partner benefits, etc.), the court is empowered to impose various protective conditions on granting of the status only bifurcation motion. These conditions effectively bind the moving party (and his or her estate) to indemnification and hold harmless agreements, and may require the posting of security, regarding the possible loss of benefits the other party may suffer by the marriage/domestic partnership dissolution judgment.” Victoria Sotva vs. Fereydoon Mashali, BD642987 (7/8/2016) (citing Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law 15:267.1) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BD642987/victoria-sotva-vs-fereydoon-mashali/20170509e65e5a).

“However, moving party provides no information as to how long the parties have been married and/or in a registered domestic partnership. The judgment here is nearly 10 years old. As a spouse’s earnings remain separate property for debts incurred prior to marriage, the only way for moving party to reach the wages of Khouloud Bustami, would be to show that the judgment was entered during the marriage, and is thus a community obligation (Family Code 910(a).) As moving party has not provided any such evidence, moving party’s petition for a wage assignment against Khouloud Bustami fails.” Vetter Vs. Izhakpor, 30-2018-00995199-CU-PT-CJC (7/20/2018) (https://trellis.law/ruling/30-2018-00995199-CU-PT-CJC/vetter-vs-izhakpor/201807204e1974).

“Defendant demurs to the 7th COA on the ground that the FAC fails to allege whether the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct. The FAC alleges an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant that is based upon oral and written agreements, consisting of the written domestic partnership affidavit and Defendant’s many oral promises during the course of his relationship with Plaintiff. This is sufficient to support the agreement, and Defendant can engage in discovery to determine the circumstances of the promises alleged. This ground is overruled.” Shayne Shnapier vs. Jason Sklaver, BC576873 (1/12/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC576873/shayne-shnapier-vs-jason-sklaver/2017011241338d).