Preview
oC wm ND NH RB WN
10
Selene Ballonoff
2230 Dwight Way, Apt.308 L E Dp
Berkeley, CA 94704 ‘San Francisco County Sunerior Coun
Telephone: 510-549-3709
Pro Per MAR 11 2019
gy Clea EM
BY.
Objector Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CASE NO. PTR-17-301171
In re the
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF ) PETITION OF TRUSTEE FOR
REVOCABLE TRUST AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A
FEE AGREEMENT WITH
LITIGATION COUNSEL
Related matter PCN-12-295409
Conservatorship of _ CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED
MARI RMA AND SERVING IN RELATED
LN SILVE N-BALLONOFF CONSERVATORSHIP MATTER
Selene Ballonoff objects to authorizing an additional $50,000 of Trust Litigation fees as follows:
I. The Most Labor Intensive Litigation is Moot; Fees Should be Reduced
At the point in time when Mr. Lucas was given authority to incur and pay
$100,000.00 in litigation fees and costs on top of the $10,000.00 he had already been given
authority for in Conservatorship of Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff (PCN-12-295409) the single
most costly litigation he had to defend against was the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse. On
January 16, 2019, The Honorable Peter J. Busch indicated that he was authorizing the full
$100,000.00 of the fee request because the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse was pending. On
February 25, 2019, the Honorable John K. Stewart ordered that the Third Conservatorship
Seléne Ballonoffs Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 1 of 4Oo me N A HM BF WN
RwN YN NK NNN S&B ee we we Be Be ee
S2AIA A KEOHONH FSSC wM AAA BH NH KE DS
Account (which he had ordered stayed pending resolution of both the Civil Elder Abuse
Complaint * * and * * the Probate Petition to Limit Authority of Conservator) be set for
Evidentiary Hearing because the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse had not been served. Since
the Court is now acting as if the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse had never been filed and the
Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse was the most costly litigation to defend against, the
Conservator's Authority to Incur and Pay Litigation Fees and Costs should be reduced. There is
no reasonable expectation that Trust Litigation will cost $50,000.00. Whatever authority Mr.
Lucas is given to incur and pay litigation costs and fees on the Trust should be deducted against
his authority to incur and pay litigation costs and fees on the Conservatorship, and the latter
should be reduced overall because of the lack of service of the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse.
II. Coordinating the Trust and Conservatorship Accounting Proceedings to Reduce Costs
As Trustee, Mr. Lucas is obligated to manage the Trust with prudence, care and
skill. Litigation costs would be significantly reduced by coordinating the Trust and
Conservatorship Accounting proceedings. Selene Ballonoff's Petition to Coordinate the Trust
and Conservatorship Proceedings is attached as Attachment
III. Detailed Timesheets for Services Already Rendered Should be Provided
The October 22, 2019 email from Trudy Verzosa to the parties regarding the
request for additional fees for litigation counsel needing to be filed as a regular, noticed motion
stated in part: "Judge Stewart would also like itemized timesheets attached to the petition to
support the fees already paid." The itemized timesheets attached to the petition which was
ultimately heard and granted by The Honorable Peter J. Busch on January 16, 2019 stopped on
November 9, 2018. November 9, 2018 was the date of service of the Amended Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Document Production (hereinafter "Motion to Compel"). The
Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 2 of 4SoU me N DH PB WN
NN NY NY YN NNN BB Bee Be se eB Be ee
oN AA BBN FF SO MAIDA BBN
Second Amended Separate Statement of Facts that is part of the Motion to Compel describes the
* * three * * rounds of spectacularly wasteful, unnecessary, bad faith, baseless, boilerplate
objections Mr. Lucas had Ms. Callejo, Ms. Robello * * and * * Ms. Lupo send. Ms. Lupo's
third set of objections are longer, more numerous and detailed than either of the previous sets,
showing just how bad faith Mr. Lucas's meet and confer efforts were.
IV. Over $10,000 to produce 450 documents in eight different categories
If the fees to produce approximately 450 pages of documents in response to
what amounted to eight document requests (since Mr. Lucas claimed not to have any documents
responsive to three of the eleven Requests for Production of Documents) exceeds $10,000.00,
the parties and the Court need an affirmative showing that the fees are "just and reasonable"
given the skill level and loyalty of the attorneys.
The documents produced by Mr. Lucas are the sort where one locates a thick
paper file or does an online search of one's inbox, clicks "print" and dozens of documents are
ready for copying in short order. Of the first 410 documents produced,
117 are bank records (1-104 and 108-122)
45 are continuing education records (105-107, 154-161, 318-351)
37 are PFB records (123, 151-153, 378-410)
5 are POLST forms (124-125, 150, 375-376)
88 are emails between and among Mr. Lucas, Ms. Callejo and the Court and court-appointed
counsel (128-149, 273-317, 352-369, 372-374)
116 are a hodgepodge of receipts in no particular order from various health care providers,
medical supply vendors, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly and insurance companies
with some medical records (1260127, 162-272-370-371, 377)
2 are blank pages that got Bates stamped.
Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 3 of 4Co ON DH HA BF WN
10
Why producing eight categories of documents cost well over $10,000 is something the Court
may wish to request further information about prior to authorizing another $50,000 of litigation
fees.
V. Sheila Robello and her Firm have a Conflict of Interest
Selene Ballonoff incorporates by reference all points, authorities and evidence
part of the Court's file in Conservatorship of Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff regarding Sheila
Robello and Solan Park & Robello's conflict of interest in defending Mr. Lucas against
allegations regarding acts and failures to act that were enabled and facilitated by a former
associate of Solan Park & Robello.
WHEREFORE OBJECTOR PRAYS FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING Trustee to incur and
pay $5,000 of fees and costs to litigation counsel currently authorized and serving in related
conservatorship matter, and reducing authority to incur and pay litigation costs and fees to
$50,000 in related Conservatorship matter.
I certify under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct except for those matters stated
on information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
Signed: Mlentleli 4) at Berkeley, CA on March 11, 2019
Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 4 of 4
Related Content
in San Francisco County
Ruling
EDWARD WESTERMAN VS. FTI CONSULTING, INC. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC24615152
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 12. PLAINTIFF EDWARD WESTERMAN's Motion To Seal. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
VANESA O'HANLON VS. TONY GARNICKI ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23610527
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 16. PLAINTIFF VANESA O'HANLON's Application And Hearing For Right To Attach Order And Writ Of Attachment. "Plaintiff's application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment" is denied. This action regards a series of oral loans - several involving credit cards - that plaintiff allegedly made to defendant and he did not fully re-pay. The motion is denied for two principal reasons. First, the amount of plaintiff's claims is not "fixed or readily ascertainable." (CCP 483.010(a).) For example, plaintiff concedes she is "unable to locate my credit card statements to correctly charge" defendant. (O'Hanlon Dec. 3:1-3.) Second, plaintiff has not "established the probable validity" of her claims. (CCP 484.090(a)(2).) For example, plaintiff concedes the loans - all oral - began "in April 2017," raising serious statute-of-limitations issues. (O'Hanlon Dec. 1:25; CCP 339.) The court does not rely on defendant's untimely opposition for the above, but rather plaintiff's own declaration. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript msay be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
KATHRYN RUTH KASCH ET AL VS. OWL, INC., DBA OWL TRANSPORTATION ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC23607827
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-12-2024, Line 5, 2-PLAINTIFF KATHRYN KASCH'S Motion To Compel Further Response To Requests For Production Of Documents And For Sanctions. Pro Tem Judge William Lynn, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: The motions are denied as the time for a motion to compel further responses pursuant to C.C.P. Sec. 2031.310 has passed, and the parties did not have a "specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing," therefore, the moving party has waived any right to compel a further response. C.C.P. Secs. 2023.300(c), 2031.310(c); Sexton v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 (1997). The parties' mutual mistake that they can have an open deadline for discovery motions does not and cannot supersede or otherwise alter Civil Discovery Act's explicit requirement of a "specific later date." For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to williamclynn@gmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)
Ruling
A & A GENERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INC., A VS. ARLENE S. TASIM ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC23609755
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT ARLENE TASIM AND ALI TASIM'S Motion For Sanctions Against A A General Building Construction Inc. Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281.99. Defendants and Cross-Complainants' unopposed Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $8350.00 is granted (CCP section 1281.99), payment to be made within 30 days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
PRECILA BALABBO VS. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC23608469
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 10. PLAINTIFF PRECILA BALABBO's Motion To Approve Proposition 65 Settlement And Consent Judgment. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to approve Proposition 65 settlement and consent judgment is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
FDI-18-789009
Jul 11, 2024 |
FDI-18-789009
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT
4
5
)
6 JOSE ENRIQUE ESTRELLA, ) Case Number: FDI-18-789009
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: July 11, 2024
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 DARLA ROVETTI, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: ANNE COSTIN
)
11 )
12 REQUEST FOR ORDER [X] SET ASIDE DISMISSAL ENTERED ON 5/10/22
13 TENTATIVE RULING
14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the
15 Court makes the following findings and orders:
16 1) On for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 4/19/2024 asking to set aside the dismissal of
17 this action which was entered on 5/10/2022.
18 2) There is no Proof of Service on file evidencing service of Petitioner’s Request for Order, nor has
19 Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration.
20 3) The hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 4/19/2024 is hereby continued to Thursday,
21 9/26/2025 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404.
22 4) By the deadlines set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, Petitioner shall have his Request for Order
23 filed 4/19/2024 as well as a copy of this order for continuance served on Respondent. The Court is
24 requiring that service of these documents on Respondent be performed personally.
25 5) Petitioner must file a Proof of Personal Service evidencing compliance with the orders set forth above
26 at least 10 calendar days in advance of the next hearing date.
27 6) Petitioner is strongly encouraged to seek assistance from the ACCESS Center. Information for the
28 ACCESS Center can be found here: https://sf.courts.ca.gov/self-help.
29 7) The Court will prepare the order.
1
Ruling
1950 MISSION HOUSING ASSOCIATE VS. GRIZEL VASQUEZ ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CUD24674407
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 9, 2024 line 3. DEFENDANT GRIZEL VASQUEZ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Hearing Required. Counsel for both sides and representative of Plaintiff with authority to verify the responses must appear in person on July 9, 2024 and 8:15 a.m. and engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts. Parties to report their progress at 9:30 a.m. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
NICOLA VOLPI ET AL VS. DESIGN LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC22600407
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 12, 2024 line 1. OTHER LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY AS INSURER OF BLOMBERG BUILDING MATERIALS DBA BLOMBERG WINDOWS SYSTEMS MOTION TO INTERVENE is GRANTED. No opposition filed. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Document
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSABELLA SAFONT TRUST
Oct 26, 2020 |
Ross C. Moody
|
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
TRUST (petition for order confirming jonathan gunderson and andrew safont as co-successor trustees; authorizing and directing conveyance of trust property) |
PTR20303989
Preview
oC wm ND NH RB WN 10 Selene Ballonoff 2230 Dwight Way, Apt.308 L E Dp Berkeley, CA 94704 ‘San Francisco County Sunerior Coun Telephone: 510-549-3709 Pro Per MAR 11 2019 gy Clea EM BY. Objector Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CASE NO. PTR-17-301171 In re the OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF ) PETITION OF TRUSTEE FOR REVOCABLE TRUST AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A FEE AGREEMENT WITH LITIGATION COUNSEL Related matter PCN-12-295409 Conservatorship of _ CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED MARI RMA AND SERVING IN RELATED LN SILVE N-BALLONOFF CONSERVATORSHIP MATTER Selene Ballonoff objects to authorizing an additional $50,000 of Trust Litigation fees as follows: I. The Most Labor Intensive Litigation is Moot; Fees Should be Reduced At the point in time when Mr. Lucas was given authority to incur and pay $100,000.00 in litigation fees and costs on top of the $10,000.00 he had already been given authority for in Conservatorship of Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff (PCN-12-295409) the single most costly litigation he had to defend against was the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse. On January 16, 2019, The Honorable Peter J. Busch indicated that he was authorizing the full $100,000.00 of the fee request because the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse was pending. On February 25, 2019, the Honorable John K. Stewart ordered that the Third Conservatorship Seléne Ballonoffs Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 1 of 4Oo me N A HM BF WN RwN YN NK NNN S&B ee we we Be Be ee S2AIA A KEOHONH FSSC wM AAA BH NH KE DS Account (which he had ordered stayed pending resolution of both the Civil Elder Abuse Complaint * * and * * the Probate Petition to Limit Authority of Conservator) be set for Evidentiary Hearing because the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse had not been served. Since the Court is now acting as if the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse had never been filed and the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse was the most costly litigation to defend against, the Conservator's Authority to Incur and Pay Litigation Fees and Costs should be reduced. There is no reasonable expectation that Trust Litigation will cost $50,000.00. Whatever authority Mr. Lucas is given to incur and pay litigation costs and fees on the Trust should be deducted against his authority to incur and pay litigation costs and fees on the Conservatorship, and the latter should be reduced overall because of the lack of service of the Civil Complaint for Elder Abuse. II. Coordinating the Trust and Conservatorship Accounting Proceedings to Reduce Costs As Trustee, Mr. Lucas is obligated to manage the Trust with prudence, care and skill. Litigation costs would be significantly reduced by coordinating the Trust and Conservatorship Accounting proceedings. Selene Ballonoff's Petition to Coordinate the Trust and Conservatorship Proceedings is attached as Attachment III. Detailed Timesheets for Services Already Rendered Should be Provided The October 22, 2019 email from Trudy Verzosa to the parties regarding the request for additional fees for litigation counsel needing to be filed as a regular, noticed motion stated in part: "Judge Stewart would also like itemized timesheets attached to the petition to support the fees already paid." The itemized timesheets attached to the petition which was ultimately heard and granted by The Honorable Peter J. Busch on January 16, 2019 stopped on November 9, 2018. November 9, 2018 was the date of service of the Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Document Production (hereinafter "Motion to Compel"). The Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 2 of 4SoU me N DH PB WN NN NY NY YN NNN BB Bee Be se eB Be ee oN AA BBN FF SO MAIDA BBN Second Amended Separate Statement of Facts that is part of the Motion to Compel describes the * * three * * rounds of spectacularly wasteful, unnecessary, bad faith, baseless, boilerplate objections Mr. Lucas had Ms. Callejo, Ms. Robello * * and * * Ms. Lupo send. Ms. Lupo's third set of objections are longer, more numerous and detailed than either of the previous sets, showing just how bad faith Mr. Lucas's meet and confer efforts were. IV. Over $10,000 to produce 450 documents in eight different categories If the fees to produce approximately 450 pages of documents in response to what amounted to eight document requests (since Mr. Lucas claimed not to have any documents responsive to three of the eleven Requests for Production of Documents) exceeds $10,000.00, the parties and the Court need an affirmative showing that the fees are "just and reasonable" given the skill level and loyalty of the attorneys. The documents produced by Mr. Lucas are the sort where one locates a thick paper file or does an online search of one's inbox, clicks "print" and dozens of documents are ready for copying in short order. Of the first 410 documents produced, 117 are bank records (1-104 and 108-122) 45 are continuing education records (105-107, 154-161, 318-351) 37 are PFB records (123, 151-153, 378-410) 5 are POLST forms (124-125, 150, 375-376) 88 are emails between and among Mr. Lucas, Ms. Callejo and the Court and court-appointed counsel (128-149, 273-317, 352-369, 372-374) 116 are a hodgepodge of receipts in no particular order from various health care providers, medical supply vendors, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly and insurance companies with some medical records (1260127, 162-272-370-371, 377) 2 are blank pages that got Bates stamped. Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 3 of 4Co ON DH HA BF WN 10 Why producing eight categories of documents cost well over $10,000 is something the Court may wish to request further information about prior to authorizing another $50,000 of litigation fees. V. Sheila Robello and her Firm have a Conflict of Interest Selene Ballonoff incorporates by reference all points, authorities and evidence part of the Court's file in Conservatorship of Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff regarding Sheila Robello and Solan Park & Robello's conflict of interest in defending Mr. Lucas against allegations regarding acts and failures to act that were enabled and facilitated by a former associate of Solan Park & Robello. WHEREFORE OBJECTOR PRAYS FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING Trustee to incur and pay $5,000 of fees and costs to litigation counsel currently authorized and serving in related conservatorship matter, and reducing authority to incur and pay litigation costs and fees to $50,000 in related Conservatorship matter. I certify under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct except for those matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Signed: Mlentleli 4) at Berkeley, CA on March 11, 2019 Selene Ballonoff's Objection to $50,000 for Trust Litigation Page 4 of 4