Preview
1 Lee L. Kaster (SBN: 208743)
LAW OFFICES OF LEE L. KASTER, P.C.
2 1806 Bonanza Street ELECTRONICALLY
3
Walnut Creek, California
Telephone: (925) 280-6701
94596 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (925) 280-6078 County of San Francisco
4
12/08/2020
Attorney for Administrator and Petitioner Clerk of the Court
5 KAREN L. FISHER, CLPF #675 BY: MICHAEL RAYRAY
Deputy Clerk
6 DEPARTMENT: 204
7 Hearing: 03/16/2021 9:00 am
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 In the Matter of the Estate of Husam Case No. PES-20-303794
Mousa Qana,
12 PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO
Deceased. RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR
13 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ATTORNEY-
CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT
14
**REDACTED VERSION
15 Date:
Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 Dept.: 204
17
18 Karen L. Fisher, CLPF #675, as Administrator of the Estate of Husam Mousa Qana,
19 hereby petitions the Court for an Order authorizing her to retain the law firm of Winer, Burritt &
20 Scott, LLP and Shawn Tillis, Esq. as litigation counsel for the purpose of representing the estate
21 in a “survival” action against the decedent’s former employer, the San Francisco Housing
22 Authority, as well as its former Director of Finance, Edwin Jamora, pending in San Francisco
23 County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-18-569120). Petitioner further seeks the Court’s approval
24 of the proposed attorney-client fee agreement with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP and Mr. Tillis. In
25 a separate Motion to Seal Record which is set for hearing on February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in
26 Department 204, Petitioner is requesting an Order that the fee agreement be sealed by the Court
27 because it is subject to the attorney-client privilege and disclosure of the terms of the agreement
28
PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE
AGREEMENT
1 to the defendants in the civil action could harm the estate’s tactical position in the litigation.
2 Petitioner alleges as follows:
3 1. Decedent Husam Mousa Qana died intestate on May 9, 2020 in San Francisco
4 County, California, and was a resident of San Francisco County at the time of his death.
5 2. Petitioner (a California licensed professional fiduciary) was appointed
6 Administrator of the Estate with full IAEA authority on September 21, 2020. At all times since
7 then Petitioner has been and now is the duly appointed and acting Administrator of decedent’s
8 estate. Petitioner’s IAEA powers have not been revoked.
9 3. At the time of his death, decedent had a civil lawsuit pending against his employer,
10 the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) and SFHA’s former Director of Finance, Edwin
11 Jamora. The lawsuit (San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-18-569120) was filed
12 on August 23, 2018. It alleges causes of action (among others) for sexual harassment and failure
13 to pay overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. A true and correct copy of
14 decedent’s Second Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) in the civil action is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit A. Decedent was employed by SFHA from 2010 until his death in May 2020.
16 Although decedent’s claim for emotional distress and other “general” damages did not survive his
17 death, his claims for special damages, including unpaid overtime, penalties, interest and
18 attorneys’ fees, survived his death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20 and it is in the
19 estate’s best interest to pursue these “surviving” claims. Petitioner is informed and believes that
20 the survival action has substantial monetary value. The lawsuit appears to be the primary asset of
21 the estate.
22 4. Decedent was represented in the lawsuit by the law firm of Winer, Burritt & Scott,
23 LLP in Oakland, California. Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP is a prominent Bay Area plaintiff-side
24 law firm which routinely handles employment and personal injury cases. The attorney at the
25 Winer firm who has been primarily responsible for handling the case on decedent’s behalf is
26 Shawn Tillis. In approximately May 2020 (the same month in which decedent died), Mr. Tillis
27 left the Winer firm to start his own law firm, The Tillis Law Firm. The proposal now is to have
28
-2-
PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE
AGREEMENT
1 both Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm represent the estate as co-counsel, with the fee to be split
2 between them.
3 5. The proposed attorney-client fee agreement between the estate and Mr. Tillis/
4 Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP is essentially identical to the agreement that decedent entered into
5 with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP when he retained it to represent him. It is attached as Exhibit A
6 to the unredacted version of this Petition that is being lodged with the Court pursuant to Rule
7 2.551 of the California Rules of Court.
8 6. Retention of Mr. Tillis and Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP by the estate and approval
9 of the proposed fee agreement with them is in the best interests of the estate. The estate needs
10 representation in this matter and Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm are the obvious choice since they
11 were already representing decedent at the time of his death and had been since the beginning of
12 the case. They are intimately familiar with the case and well qualified to represent the estate. Mr.
13 Tillis is an experienced trial attorney and both he and the Winer law firm have extensive
14 experience handing plaintiff-side employment cases. The estate will benefit from Mr. Tillis
15 representing it in the civil action because of his skills and experience as a trial lawyer and his
16 familiarity with the case from representing decedent.
17 7. In addition to attorneys’ fees, the proposed attorney-client fee agreement obligates
18 the estate to pay for the out of pocket costs that have been incurred by the Winer law firm to date
19 in connection with the litigation, plus interest, subject to the terms of the agreement. A list of
20 these costs is attached as Attachment B to the proposed fee agreement. They include, among other
21 things, expert witness fees and deposition costs. Decedent agreed to pay these costs in the
22 agreement he entered into with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP. See Attachment A to the proposed
23 fee agreement at page 7. Petitioner is informed and believes that these costs were necessary and
24 reasonable and should be approved by the Court. If and when there is sufficient cash in the estate
25 to do so, Petitioner may switch to paying the litigation costs directly rather than financing them
26 through the Winer law firm to avoid future interest expenses.
27 8. Due to the procedural status of the civil action, there is an urgent need to have this
28
-3-
PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE
AGREEMENT
1 matter heard as soon as possible. The trial date in the civil action is set for February 1, 2021. The
2 hearing on defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the causes of action for unpaid
3 overtime and breach of contract occurred on November 18, 2020. Mr. Tillis filed an opposition to
4 the Motion for Summary Adjudication and appeared at the hearing on behalf of the estate (the
5 estate was substituted in as the plaintiff in the civil action on October 9). Additional fact witness
6 depositions need to be taken as well as expert witness depositions. The parties have discussed
7 going to mediation to try to settle the case. Given these circumstances, it is imperative for
8 Petitioner to get authorization from the Court to retain Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm and approval
9 of the proposed attorney-client fee agreement as soon as possible to ensure their continued
10 representation of the estate in this matter. Obviously, it is not ideal that Mr. Tillis has been doing
11 work on behalf of the estate without an Order already in place from the probate department
12 authorizing Petitioner to retain him as litigation counsel and approving his fee agreement.
13 Defendants’ counsel insisted on moving forward with their Motion for Summary Adjudication
14 and Petitioner’s counsel was unable to file this Petition any sooner. Petitioner may need to file an
15 ex parte petition to advance the hearing of this Petition due to the deadlines in the civil case and
16 the need to secure Mr. Tillis’s continued representation as soon as possible. Petitioner is informed
17 and believes that all of the heirs are in favor of the estate retaining the services of Mr. Tillis and
18 Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP to represent it in the lawsuit.
19 9. Petitioner submits that the attorneys’ compensation provided for in the proposed
20 fee agreement is just and reasonable and the agreement is to the advantage of the estate and in the
21 best interests of the persons interested therein. Accordingly, Petitioner requests an Order
22 authorizing her to retain Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP and Shawn Tillis as litigation counsel to
23 represent the estate in Case No. CGC-18-569120 and approving the proposed attorney-client fee
24 agreement attached hereto.
25 10. The following individuals are entitled to notice of the hearing of this petition:
26
27
28
-4-
PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE
AGREEMENT
1 VERIFICATION
2 I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGTION
3 COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ATTORNEY -CLIENT FEE
4 AGREEMENT and the exhibits thereto and know their contents . The matters stated in the
5 foregoing documents are true of my own personal knowledge except as to those matters which are
6 stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
8 is true and correct.
ta
9
Executed on December 5 , 2020 at Walnut Creek,California .
10
11
Kam kreab
KAREN L. FISHER , CLPF # 675
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 6 -
PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE
AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A IS RECACTED FROM THIS PUBLIC VERSION OF THE
PETITION. EXHIBIT A IS SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO SEAL WHCIH IS
SET FOR HEARING ON 2/24/21 AT 2:00 P.M. IN DEPT. 204.
EXHIBIT A
Preview
1 Lee L. Kaster (SBN: 208743) LAW OFFICES OF LEE L. KASTER, P.C. 2 1806 Bonanza Street ELECTRONICALLY 3 Walnut Creek, California Telephone: (925) 280-6701 94596 F I L E D Superior Court of California, Facsimile: (925) 280-6078 County of San Francisco 4 12/08/2020 Attorney for Administrator and Petitioner Clerk of the Court 5 KAREN L. FISHER, CLPF #675 BY: MICHAEL RAYRAY Deputy Clerk 6 DEPARTMENT: 204 7 Hearing: 03/16/2021 9:00 am 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 In the Matter of the Estate of Husam Case No. PES-20-303794 Mousa Qana, 12 PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO Deceased. RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR 13 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ATTORNEY- CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT 14 **REDACTED VERSION 15 Date: Time: 9:00 a.m. 16 Dept.: 204 17 18 Karen L. Fisher, CLPF #675, as Administrator of the Estate of Husam Mousa Qana, 19 hereby petitions the Court for an Order authorizing her to retain the law firm of Winer, Burritt & 20 Scott, LLP and Shawn Tillis, Esq. as litigation counsel for the purpose of representing the estate 21 in a “survival” action against the decedent’s former employer, the San Francisco Housing 22 Authority, as well as its former Director of Finance, Edwin Jamora, pending in San Francisco 23 County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-18-569120). Petitioner further seeks the Court’s approval 24 of the proposed attorney-client fee agreement with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP and Mr. Tillis. In 25 a separate Motion to Seal Record which is set for hearing on February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in 26 Department 204, Petitioner is requesting an Order that the fee agreement be sealed by the Court 27 because it is subject to the attorney-client privilege and disclosure of the terms of the agreement 28 PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT 1 to the defendants in the civil action could harm the estate’s tactical position in the litigation. 2 Petitioner alleges as follows: 3 1. Decedent Husam Mousa Qana died intestate on May 9, 2020 in San Francisco 4 County, California, and was a resident of San Francisco County at the time of his death. 5 2. Petitioner (a California licensed professional fiduciary) was appointed 6 Administrator of the Estate with full IAEA authority on September 21, 2020. At all times since 7 then Petitioner has been and now is the duly appointed and acting Administrator of decedent’s 8 estate. Petitioner’s IAEA powers have not been revoked. 9 3. At the time of his death, decedent had a civil lawsuit pending against his employer, 10 the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) and SFHA’s former Director of Finance, Edwin 11 Jamora. The lawsuit (San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-18-569120) was filed 12 on August 23, 2018. It alleges causes of action (among others) for sexual harassment and failure 13 to pay overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. A true and correct copy of 14 decedent’s Second Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) in the civil action is attached 15 hereto as Exhibit A. Decedent was employed by SFHA from 2010 until his death in May 2020. 16 Although decedent’s claim for emotional distress and other “general” damages did not survive his 17 death, his claims for special damages, including unpaid overtime, penalties, interest and 18 attorneys’ fees, survived his death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20 and it is in the 19 estate’s best interest to pursue these “surviving” claims. Petitioner is informed and believes that 20 the survival action has substantial monetary value. The lawsuit appears to be the primary asset of 21 the estate. 22 4. Decedent was represented in the lawsuit by the law firm of Winer, Burritt & Scott, 23 LLP in Oakland, California. Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP is a prominent Bay Area plaintiff-side 24 law firm which routinely handles employment and personal injury cases. The attorney at the 25 Winer firm who has been primarily responsible for handling the case on decedent’s behalf is 26 Shawn Tillis. In approximately May 2020 (the same month in which decedent died), Mr. Tillis 27 left the Winer firm to start his own law firm, The Tillis Law Firm. The proposal now is to have 28 -2- PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT 1 both Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm represent the estate as co-counsel, with the fee to be split 2 between them. 3 5. The proposed attorney-client fee agreement between the estate and Mr. Tillis/ 4 Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP is essentially identical to the agreement that decedent entered into 5 with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP when he retained it to represent him. It is attached as Exhibit A 6 to the unredacted version of this Petition that is being lodged with the Court pursuant to Rule 7 2.551 of the California Rules of Court. 8 6. Retention of Mr. Tillis and Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP by the estate and approval 9 of the proposed fee agreement with them is in the best interests of the estate. The estate needs 10 representation in this matter and Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm are the obvious choice since they 11 were already representing decedent at the time of his death and had been since the beginning of 12 the case. They are intimately familiar with the case and well qualified to represent the estate. Mr. 13 Tillis is an experienced trial attorney and both he and the Winer law firm have extensive 14 experience handing plaintiff-side employment cases. The estate will benefit from Mr. Tillis 15 representing it in the civil action because of his skills and experience as a trial lawyer and his 16 familiarity with the case from representing decedent. 17 7. In addition to attorneys’ fees, the proposed attorney-client fee agreement obligates 18 the estate to pay for the out of pocket costs that have been incurred by the Winer law firm to date 19 in connection with the litigation, plus interest, subject to the terms of the agreement. A list of 20 these costs is attached as Attachment B to the proposed fee agreement. They include, among other 21 things, expert witness fees and deposition costs. Decedent agreed to pay these costs in the 22 agreement he entered into with Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP. See Attachment A to the proposed 23 fee agreement at page 7. Petitioner is informed and believes that these costs were necessary and 24 reasonable and should be approved by the Court. If and when there is sufficient cash in the estate 25 to do so, Petitioner may switch to paying the litigation costs directly rather than financing them 26 through the Winer law firm to avoid future interest expenses. 27 8. Due to the procedural status of the civil action, there is an urgent need to have this 28 -3- PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT 1 matter heard as soon as possible. The trial date in the civil action is set for February 1, 2021. The 2 hearing on defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the causes of action for unpaid 3 overtime and breach of contract occurred on November 18, 2020. Mr. Tillis filed an opposition to 4 the Motion for Summary Adjudication and appeared at the hearing on behalf of the estate (the 5 estate was substituted in as the plaintiff in the civil action on October 9). Additional fact witness 6 depositions need to be taken as well as expert witness depositions. The parties have discussed 7 going to mediation to try to settle the case. Given these circumstances, it is imperative for 8 Petitioner to get authorization from the Court to retain Mr. Tillis and the Winer firm and approval 9 of the proposed attorney-client fee agreement as soon as possible to ensure their continued 10 representation of the estate in this matter. Obviously, it is not ideal that Mr. Tillis has been doing 11 work on behalf of the estate without an Order already in place from the probate department 12 authorizing Petitioner to retain him as litigation counsel and approving his fee agreement. 13 Defendants’ counsel insisted on moving forward with their Motion for Summary Adjudication 14 and Petitioner’s counsel was unable to file this Petition any sooner. Petitioner may need to file an 15 ex parte petition to advance the hearing of this Petition due to the deadlines in the civil case and 16 the need to secure Mr. Tillis’s continued representation as soon as possible. Petitioner is informed 17 and believes that all of the heirs are in favor of the estate retaining the services of Mr. Tillis and 18 Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP to represent it in the lawsuit. 19 9. Petitioner submits that the attorneys’ compensation provided for in the proposed 20 fee agreement is just and reasonable and the agreement is to the advantage of the estate and in the 21 best interests of the persons interested therein. Accordingly, Petitioner requests an Order 22 authorizing her to retain Winer, Burritt & Scott, LLP and Shawn Tillis as litigation counsel to 23 represent the estate in Case No. CGC-18-569120 and approving the proposed attorney-client fee 24 agreement attached hereto. 25 10. The following individuals are entitled to notice of the hearing of this petition: 26 27 28 -4- PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT 1 VERIFICATION 2 I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGTION 3 COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ATTORNEY -CLIENT FEE 4 AGREEMENT and the exhibits thereto and know their contents . The matters stated in the 5 foregoing documents are true of my own personal knowledge except as to those matters which are 6 stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 8 is true and correct. ta 9 Executed on December 5 , 2020 at Walnut Creek,California . 10 11 Kam kreab KAREN L. FISHER , CLPF # 675 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 6 - PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN LITIGATION COUNSEL AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY - CLIENT FEE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A IS RECACTED FROM THIS PUBLIC VERSION OF THE PETITION. EXHIBIT A IS SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO SEAL WHCIH IS SET FOR HEARING ON 2/24/21 AT 2:00 P.M. IN DEPT. 204. EXHIBIT A