Preview
DavidJ. Tappeiner (SBN 243979)
RIMON LAW. P.
3 West Carrillo St, Suite 216, Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 892-7177
Email: David.Tappeiner@ rimonlaw.com
Attomeys for Plaintiffs, Mark Sellars, Individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust
u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin, Conservator of the Estate and Person of
Rosemary Free Leahy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVSION
10
11
September 13, 2000; and
t
MARK SELLARS, individu all and as
Trustee of the Rosemary Free tust u/d/t dated
REBECCA MORIN, )
Case No. 20CV 04132
[Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Thoma:
12 Conservator of the Estate and Person of ) P. Anderle]
Rosemary Free Leahy,
13 DECLARATION OF DAVIDJ.
Plaintiffs, TAPPEINER REGARDING
14 PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED
vs. COMPLAINT
15
PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE
16 LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a
California corporation; PATRICIA
17 WOLLUM; SUSAN REY NOLDS; HONOR
HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA,
18 INC., a Delaware corporation doing business
in California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23 I, DavidJ. Tappeiner, hereby declare as follows:
24 1 Tam an attomey duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, under State
25 Bar No. 243979. I am a partner at RIMON LAW, P.C., and legal counsel for Plaintiffs. ,
26 2 Attached hereto is a marked-up copy of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint,
27 showing all revisions made.
28 il
1
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. TAPPEINER REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Santa Barbara, Califomia this 12" day of January 2024.
/s/ David]. Tappeiner
a
DavidJ. Tappeiner
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. TAPPEINER REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
David J. Te sppeines Sa 243979)
DI LAW
125 East Victoria, Suite T
Santa Barbara, ae a
Telephor
Facsit 805; BS 038
Email
Attorneys for Plain lars, Individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust
wd/t dated September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin, Conservator of the Estate and Person of
Rosemary Free y
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
10
MARK SELLARS, init al and as Case No. 20CV04132
u Trustee of the Rosemary rust u/d/t
dated September 13, 200 0: and REBECCA
12 MO! , Conservator of the Estate and
Person of Rosemary Free >
sf (A: ssigned for all purposes to Hon.
‘homas P. Anderle}
13 PLAINTIFFS”
Plaintiffs, AS ERPERTUIRD AMENDED
4
vs.
15 1. ELD)
PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, FINANCIAL, ELDER ABUSE;
16 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. LEGAL MALPRACTICE;
PATRICIA WOLLUM; Regan
COLES, a California cor pee OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
Ww AL BrctoN OF
LDS; NOR’ HOME CARE EMOTIONAL DISTRE!
18 SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC, a 6. NEGLIGENCE,
Delaware corporation doin; business in
19 California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, NO TRIAL DATE SET
Defendants.
2
22
23
Plaintiffs Mark Sellars, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated
September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin , Conservator of the Estate-and Person of Rosemary Free
25
Leahy, y and through their attorneys, DT LAW PARTNERS; LLF, submit this Second
26
27 AmendedThird Amended Complaint for Elder Abuse; Financial Elder Abuse; Legal Malpractice;
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Negligence against the
)ED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABI ; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FID JUCIARY DUTY} INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF PMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
defendants identified above and remaining Doe Defendants 1-10 (individually and collectively.
“Defendsnts”), and in support thereof allege as follows:
L
THIS SECOND-AMENDEDTHIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NECESSARY IN
JRDER TO ADD HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., AS A “DOE”!
DEFENDANT
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
ENDING DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY DEFENDANT!
CHANNE COLES AND THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLE:
10 1 Rosemary Free Leahy (“Rosemary”) began suffering from cognitive disabilities in or
u around 2017. As soon as Rosemary became compromised, her third-husband, Patrick Leahy (“Mr.
12 Leahy”), started to abuse Rosemary, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. Because of the abusg
13 committed against Rosemary by Mr. Leahy, her son, Mark Sellars (“Mark”), filed to have
4 Rosemary conserved on December 5, 2018, which was ultimately granted. Rosemary is now 92)
15 years old. Unfortunately, her dementia is now so advanced that she has had to be moved from her
16 home to a memory care facility, something Rosemary wished would never happen.
7 2. As Mark had been designated by Rosemary to act as her Conservator, in his Petition for
18 Appointment of Probate Conservator for Rosemary in related case Jn Re: Conservatorship of the
19 Estate and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 18PR00576
20 (the “Conservatorship Proceeding”), Mark requested that he be appointed as Rosemary’s
a Conservator. As explained further below, as Mr. Leahy filed a meritless objection to Mark’:
request, a temporary conservatorship was established for Rosemary by Court order dated March)
21, 2019 (filed on March 26, 2019, the same date Letters of Temporary Conservatorship were
issued), appointing professional fiduciary Jacquelyn Quinn as Rosemary’s temporary Conservator!
Ms. Quinn later became the general Conservator for Rosemary
3. On December 11, 2020, Mark individually and as current Trustee of his mother’s trust, the
27
28 2
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL,
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
sLIGENCE
Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”), filed his elder abuse
complaint (the “Original Complaint”) in this matter against Mr. Leahy, the sole named defendant
at that time.
4. Prior to February 10, 2022, as explained further below, professional conservators
Jacquelyn Quinn and then Courtney DeSoto served as Rosemary’s conservators. On February 10,
2022, Rosemary’s daughter and Plaintiff herein, Rebecca Morin (“Becky”), was appointed ag
Rosemary’s Conservator and continues to act in that capacity.
5. After Becky was appointed as her mother’s Conservator, and after Mark was able to take
Mr. Leahy’s Deposition in this case, and the occurrence of the other events described hereinafter,
10 evidence was discovered which supports the claims made herein against the recently added}
u defendants, attorney Channe Coles, the Law Office of Channe G. Coles, and caregivers Patricia
12 Wollum (“Wollum”) and Susan Reynolds (“Reynolds”), each of whom were added as defendants
13 pursuant to Plaintiffs” First Amended Complaint dated January 23, 2023 (the “FAC’), which was
4 proved by the Court pursuant to Mark’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.
15 6. When Mark filed his Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, based on]
16 information that was provided to Becky and Mark, it was believed that a company known as Help|
7 Unlimited, Inc., was the employer of defendant caregivers Reynolds and Wollum. As such, the
18 Court approved the request to add Help Unlimited, Inc., as an additional defendant.
19 7. On April 26, 2023, attorney Channe Coles and the Law Office of Channe G. Coles filed
20 a demurrer to the FAC and a motion to strike certain portions of the FAC.
2 8. After the FAC was filed, it was discovered that Honor Home Care Services California, Inc.
22 (“Honor”), was the employer of defendants Wollum and Reynolds rather than Help Unlimited,
23 Inc., as originally believed. Based on such discovery, on or about May 26, 2023, Plaintifis filed
24 an amendment to the FAC, seeking to substitute Honor as a defendant in place of Help Unlimited,
Inc., and to dismiss Help Unlimited, Inc., as a defendant, without prejudice.
26
27
28. Op Jaitary 23, 2023, the Court approved Mark’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and such
Fit, fended Complaint (the “FAC”) was filed on the same date.
‘SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
Migueeacricns BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
9. The above-referenced amendment
was approved and Honor was served with the summons
and complaint. Thereafter, after Honor was served, it was discovered that Honor has no affiliation,
with Help Unlimited, Inc. As such, the above-referenced amendment
was ineffective to add Honor
as a defendant in this action. Accordingly, on July 11, 2023, Honor was dismissed as a defendant)
without prejudice. However, under Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File this Second
AmendedThird Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to add Honor as a defendant.
10. On June 20, 2023, defendants Wollum and Reynolds filed a joint demurrer and motion t
strike, which have since been withdrawn.
11. The demurrer and motion to strike filed by attorney Channe Coles and the Law Office o!
10 Channe G. Coles (the “Coles’ Defendants”) remain pending. At the hearing on August 16, 2023.
u this Court ordered Plaintiffs to file their revised motion for leave to file this Second-Amended
Third
12 Amended Complaint.
13 IL.
4 CURRENT PARTIES,
15 12. Mark is Rosemary’s biological son and the current Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trus'
16 w/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”), which trust held most of Rosemary’s assets
7 since it was established
18 13, Becky is Rosemary’s biological daughter and the court-appointed Conservator of
19 Rosemary’s Estate and Person in the Conservatorship Proceeding.
14. Mr. Leahy is Rosemary’s spouse and, at all times mentioned herein, was an individual
2 residing in Santa Barbara County, California.
22 15. Defendant Channe Coles is a duly licensed attorney by the State Bar of California
practicing in Santa Barbara County, State Bar Number 261234.
16. Defendant The Law Office of Chane G. Coles is a California corporation doing
business in Santa Barbara at 19 East Mission Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
17. For the reasons stated above, defendant Help Unlimited, Inc., has been dismissed without_|
2 prejudice.
28 18. Defendant Wollum is or was employed bly Honor and was paid to provide caregiving
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
RACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
AGENCE
services to Rosemary and, in connection with such services, engaged in wrongful acts al
Rosemary’s home in Santa Barbara County, which acts caused injury to Rosemary.
Wit
19. Similarly, Defendant Reynolds is or was employed by Honor and was paid to provide
caregiving services to Rosemary and, in connection with such services, engaged in wrongful acts
at Rosemary’s home in Santa Barbara County, which acts caused injury to Rosemary.
20. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs are filing their Motion for Leave to file this
Seeond-AmendedThird Amended Complain to add Honor as a defendant and to address issucs
10 raised by the Coles’ Defendants in their Demurrer and Motion to Strike. Honor is a Delaware
ut corporation doing business in California, with its principal place of business is at 201 3rd Street]
12 Suite 1010, San Francisco, California 94103.
13 21. Remaining Does | through 10, inclusive, are individuals, corporations, partnerships, or
4 other entities whose identity and form are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said)
1s individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entities under such fictitious names, pursuant to thd
16 provisions of Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Pros jure. Plaintiffs will amend thi:
7 Complaint to allege the true names and capacitiev,
of sevsti viduals, corporations, partnerships
18 or other entities at such time as the same have, heer’ phettlioed Plaintiffs are informed an¢
19 believe, and based thereon allege, that each of Pksapay tamed individuals, corporations,
20 partnerships or other entities is liable and respoitaibie ht Site ‘mémner for the claims, demands,
a losses, acts, and damages alleged herein.
22. Plaintiffs believe and allege that the tortious acts and omissions of Defendants and
2B the fictitiously named individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entities, and each of them,
were done in concert with each other and pursuant to a common design and agreement t
25 accomplish a particular result, and that Defendants and the fictitiously named individuals,
26 corporations, partnerships or othe esiiges, and each of them, enabled, aided and abetted each other
2 in accomplishing the acts and ¢ alleged herein.
iit
‘FLAINFWFS' SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
‘644,RTACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
(EGLIGENCE.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
23. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution,
Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction” in all other causes”
except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this action is brought do
not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
24. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and belief,
the individually named defendants are citizens of the United States and at all times relevant
hereto did reside in Santa Barbara County, California and/or each defendant has sufficient
minimum contacts in California or have otherwise intentionally availed themselves of the
10 California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over such defendants by the
u California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
12 25. Venue is proper in this Court because all of the wrongs committed against
13 Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County, the corporate defendants maintain offices,
4 have agents, and/or transact business in the State of California, in Santa Barbara County, and, at
1s all relevant times hereto, the individually named defendants resided here or have otherwise
16 consented to venue here. In addition, the Conservatorship Proceeding for Rosemary remains
7 pending here.
te Iv.
19 ROSEMARY’S BACKGROUND, EVENTS LEADING TO INITIATION OF
CONSERVATORSHIP FOR ROSEMARY AND ELDER ABUSE OF ROSEMAR'
21 ENGAGED IN BY MR. LEAHY
26. Rosemary was a lifelong medical professional... Ss received her degree from Columbia
23 University, became the Director of Nurses at Santa #xzbeta Cottage Hospital, and eventually
24 served as the Nursing Administrator of the USC-LAC miédical center.
25 27. Rosemary raised her children as a single-mother and worked hard to build a home for
26 them in Santa Barbara despite her commutes to Los Angeles for many years.
a 28. Through her hard work, Rosemary took care ofher children, acquired assets and was
28 6
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND: COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
financially secure. Rosemary was always smart, tough, and opinionated and valued her family
over anything else.
Wil
29, Before marrying Mr. Leahy in 1999, Rosemary had a Premarital Agreement prepared and
executed in order to ensure that her assets were protected in the case of a divorce from Mr.
Leahy. While Rosemary owned substantial assets that time of marriage, including her home, Mr.
Leahy had virtually no assets. Rosemary repeatedly told Mark that she did not want Mz. Leahy
to be in charge of any of her finances. She also made this clear in her estate planning documents,
10 prohibiting Mr. Leahy from acting as her trustee or agent.
u 30. In addition to the Premarital Agreement, Rosemary executed estate planning documents
12 in September 2000, under which Mark was named as her successor Trustee, Executor, and
13 primary agent for health and financial decisions.
14 31. As explained above, as Mr. Leahy continued to abuse Rosemary, which included
15 isolating her from her family and cutting off all communications, Mark had no choice but to file
16 his petition to have Rosemary conserved.
7 32. As part of his scheme to keep Rosemary isolated, Mr. Leahy removed Rosemary from the|
18 care of her primary physician, Dr. Robert Byers, who had been Rosemary’s physician for at least
19 15 years. In 2017, Dr. Byers indicated that he believed that Rosemary might be suffering from
carly Alzheimer’s Disease and ordered further testing. Future appointments were scheduled for
21 Rosemary in orderto have hier futher evaluated. As soon as Mr. Leahy learned of Dr. Byers
22 diagnosis and realized the uncovering of his abuse and financial wrongdoings were imminent, he
23 panicked and removed Rosemary fmm the care of Dr. Byers.
24 33. Although Rosemary was experiencing cognitive dectine, she still had the ability to
understand that she aeeded sssigtanes. She sought such assistance from her children and adult
grandchildren snd did got seak asgistence ftom Mr, Leahy because
she knew he could not be
2 trusted.
28 34. Prior to the time Mark commenced the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary asked
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND: COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTI
sLIGENCE
Mark to move into her home in 2017, to evaluate her situation and render assistance. It was clear}
to Mark at that time that his mother was beginning to have memory isso» and ziedded help, so
Mark agreed.
Wit
35. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home to assist her, he learned hat her prescriptions
were cut off due to numerous missed doctor’s appointments. Rosemary could not drive and had|
been relying on Mr. Leahy to assist her with maintaining appointments and for transportation. A:
part of his overall plan, Mr. Leahy ensured that Rosemary was not treated for her cognitive
difficulties and that her prescriptions went unfilled.
10 36. In addition to the foregoing, Mark discovered serious financial issues concerning
ul Rosemary, including but not limited to the fact that the amount of money that was being spent on)
12 gambling by Rosemary and Mr. Leahy (primarily using Rosemary’s money) was many times
13 greater than Rosemary allocated towards gambling when she had capacity.
4 37. Mr. Leahy exercised control over and unduly influenced Rosemary, his impaired wife, in
1s ways that allowed him: feigeany and physically isolate her from her familiar network of protection]
16 email, Skype, phone dis si regular visits with her family.
"7 38. Mark, Becky, and other of Rosemary’s family attempted hundreds of contacts with
18 Rosemary that were unsuccessful due to Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation of Rosemary and his
19 attempts to unduly influence Rosemary to fear her family.
39. Examples of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary before and after a conservator was
a appointed for her include and are not limited to the following:
a. At the first supervised visit with Rosemary in March 2019, mediator Lol
Sorenson reported that Rosemary did sit: she was not seeing her family and thereby
4 confirmed Mr. Leahy’s isolation and abus¢ of cosemary;
b. For the first family unsupervised visit in April 2019, Mr. Leahy was told by
the temporary conservator not to be present but was present and disrupted the visit.
2 ©. Mr. Leahy kept the only working landline phone behind a locked home
office door. 8
PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
sLIGENCE
d. Mr. Leahy continually interfered with Rosemary’s ability to communicass
with family members (e.g., phones unplugged from phone-jacks, tampering with her celi pfs.)
e. Mr. Leahy routinely unduly influenced Rosemary prior to visitations by
family to spoil visits.
f Mr. Leahy removed Rosemary from her home prior to scheduled visitations
(eg., Easter 2019).
8 Mr. Leahy attempted to remove Rosemary from her home prior to visitation
(the family caught him leaving as they arrived). The visit was unpleasant and cut short because o
Mr. Leahy (Thanksgiving 2019).
10 h. Throughout 2020, Mr. Leahy tampered with Rosemary’s communications
u to prevent contact with family. ‘This included using the pandemic to limit phone and in person]
12 communications and visits.
13 i Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino at least 16 times since
4 the pandemic began, five of which times occurred after he was clearly admonished not to do so
1s by Courtney DeSoto, Rosemary’s Conservator at the time. During this same time period, Mr.
16 Leahy had a sign posted on Rosemary’s door that read “No Visitors Please! We are vulnerable
"7 and don’t want to get the virus.” He used COVID as a pretense to prevent family contact
18 between Rosemary and her family.
19 J Mr. Leahy paraded Rosemary to the Courthouse during the pandemic. He
had her stand next to him, as a prop, while he said: “[w]e object” to the fee request made by
aa Mark in the Conservatorship Proceeding.
2 k. Mr. Leahy thereafter again exploited and abused Rosemary when he had
23 her read from a script that he provided to her during the remote October 15, 2020 hearing in the
Conservatorship Proceeding.
28 1 Later, on October 15, 2020, Mr. Leahy unduly interfered with Mark’s
attempt to visit Rosemary. This event, coupled with other nefarious actions taken by
2 caused Rosemary’s then-acting conservator, Courtney DeSoto, to have to seek a
28 against Mr. Leahy, Case No. 20CV04056 (the “Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter.”)
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
‘MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
IEGLIGENCE.
1 40. Further evidence of Mr. {eahy’s abuse of Rosemary has since been uncovered. The list
is long so only some of the mor¢ #428/9us actions undertaken by Mr. Leahy are described
below:
a. Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino repeatedly, even after being
told not by Rosemary’s Conservator, and used her money in order to gamble himself;
b. Mr. Leahy facilitated and encouraged Rosemary to take a $50,000 HELOC
against her house in order to pay for gambling and/cit cower gambling losses and then lied to this
Court’s investigator, claiming that the money was fost through an “oil scam” that Rosemary
became involved with; however, the conservatorship investigation concluded more than half the
10 money was lost gambling;
u ©. Mr. Leahy used Rosemary’s credit cards and/or other assets to pay for expenses o
12 his own children, including paying legal fees for his daughter, Joy;
13 d. Mr. Leahy had an ongoing affair with a woman named Cheri Limon and lied
“ about it to Rosemary and others;
15 e. Mr. Leahy falsified a vehicle loan application and used Rosemary’s income and
16 credit in order to purchase a BMW costing almost $80,000, which Mr. Leahy has used almost
"7 exclusively for himself:
18 f. Mr. Leahy terminated Rosemary’s relationship with Dr. Byers and instead took
19 her to a completely unqualified physician out of the area, in an effort to avoid or forestall a
20 finding that Rosemary was incapacitated;
a g. Mr. Leahy engaged attorney Chane Coles to object to the conservatorship
2 proceeding in order to avoid having a conservator appointed because he feared the conservator
23 would uncover his financial and other abuses of Rosemary;
h. Mr. Leahy has repeatedly disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to others;
i Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to Rosemary herself;
J Mr. Leahy has enlisted and/or indoctrinated others, including Rosemary’s
27 caregivers, in an attempt to cover his tracks and to try to make Mark and other family members
28 look bad before this Court; 10
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ‘OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
k. Mr. Leahy has abused Rosemary in violation of this Court’s orders by
intentionally discussing the pending legal proceedings with Rosemary and by disparaging Mark
by telling Rosemary that Mark does not love her and by threatening Rosemary by telling her that
if she did not go along with his “plan,” she would end up in a nursing home, knowing fill well
that Rosemary had made it abundantly clear that she wanted to be cared for her in her own home.
1 Mr. Leahy has been emotionally abusing Rosemary ever since she became
incapacitated. Even after Becky moved into Rosemary’s Home and became her Conservator,
Becky has witnessed Mr. Leahy violate this Court’s orders in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order
Matter) by: (i) discussing these ongoing legal proceeding directly with Rosemary and with
10 Rosemary’s caregivers in front of Rosemary; (ii) disparaging all of Rosemary’s family, including}
I Becky herself; and i) intimidating threatening, and harassing Rosemary.
12 V.
13 ABUSE STRAT ING ORDER, REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF SUCH
14 JR BYM) JEAHY AN) RR A IVE)
1s ATRI! WOLLUM AND SUSAN SYNOLD:
16 41. The Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter is an action that was commenced by
7 Rosemary's former conservator, Courtney DeSoto, against Mr. Leahy due to Mr. Leahy’s
18 continued abuse of Rosemary and interference with communications and visits between
19 Rosemary and her family. On December 11, 2020, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining,
Order in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter, a true and correct copy of which is attached
a hereto as Exhibit A and incorporsteé bestin by reference. That Order provides as follows:
“1. Patrick Leahy must allw sitiy'telative of Rosemary Free Leahy to visit with her
23 either, in person or by telephone, as long as the visit is consistent with all of the
following
a. Occurs at a reasonable time and is of a reasonable length;
26 b. The relative does not disparage Patrick Leahy during the visit; and,
a c. The visit is consistent with the Covid 19 guidelines, recommendations, and
restrictions in effect at the time of the visit.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL Di ‘AND
NEGLIGENCE
2. Patrick Leahy is not to upset Rosemary Free Leahy by talking with her about the
ongoing legal proceedings and, in response to any of her questions regarding such
matters, should refer her to her lawyer for answers.
3. Patrick Leahy may not take Rosemary Free Leahy from her home except as approved
by her conservator and only then as long as the visit is consistent with the Covid 19
guidelines, recommendations, and restrictions in effect at the time.
4, Patrick Leahy shall not prevent any relative of Rosemary Free Leahy from visiting her
at any reasonable time and shall not try to influence her to refuse any such visit.
5. Patrick Leahy shall not speak with Rosemary Free Leahy in any manner which
10 disparages her relatives.
"1 6. Patrick Leahy shall not take Rosemary Free Leahy to any casino or other place of
12 gambling.
13 7. Patrick Leahy shall not interfere with caregivers, including family members, who are
4 authorized by the conservator to care for Rosemary Free Leahy.”
15 42. The additional orders entered by the Court were:
16 “1, Any relative of Rosemary Free Leahy is allowed to visit with her either, in
7 person or by telephone, as long as the visit is consistent with all of the following:
18 a. Occurs at a reasonable time and is of a reasonable length;
19 b. The relative does not disparage Patrick Leahy during the visit; and,
c. The visit is consistent with the Uovid 19 guidelines, recommendations,
a and restrictions in effect at thetime of the visit.
22 2. Neither Patrick Leahy nor any of the relatives of Rosemary Free Leahy are to
2B upset her by talking with her about the ongoing legal proceedings and, in response|
24 to any of her questions regarding such matters, should refer her to her lawyer for
answers.
26 3. No one may take Rosemary Free Leahy from her home except as approved by
a7 her conservator and only then as long as the visit is consistent with the Covid 19
28 guidelines, recommendations, and“restrictions in effect at the time.
PLAINTIFFS’ SEGOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL,
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; (FLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
4. Any person may make an audio and/or video recording of any visit provided
that a copy of such audio or video is sent to counsel for the conservator and
counsel for the conservatce within a reasonable time after the recording.”
43. The recordings authorized by the Court in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter not
only confirmed Mr. Leahy’s continued abuse of Rosemary but also revealed that caregiver
defendants Wollum and Reynolds were not only negligent but engaged in conduct which caused
Rosemary substantial emotional distress and themselves and abused Rosemary by, inter alia: (i)
conspiring with Mr. Leahy to conceal his abuse and to cast Rosemary's family members in a
negative light; (ii) discussed the distressing legal matters with Mr, Leahy in front of Rosemary
10 despite the fact that each of them were aware that such matters were not to be discussed in front
of Rosemary; (iii) failed to report the ongoing abuse of Rosemary by Mr Leahy which they
12 witnessed; (iv) intentionally did not include information about Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary
13 in the reports they filed with Rosemary’s Conservator; and (v) in an attempt to cast Rosemary’s
4 family members. in a false tight, filed knowingly false reports with Rosemary’s Conservator,
15 accusing Rosemary*s fixity members of engaging in conduct which they did not engage in,
16 which reports were veduied in their entirety by actual evidence.
" 44, Following is just one example of the emotional abuse by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary
18 which was ciptured on the recordings authorized by the Court in connection with the Elder
19 Abjiwse Restraining Order Matter:
Mir. Leahy speaking to Rosemary (see Exhibit B attached):
2 Mr. Leahy: “You told me..., You told them in the living trust that I am not to handle any
2 of our finances or any of your affairs if you have medical problems. Well guess what? You have
23 moderate dementia; it has been verified by the Court. You have a conservator because of that;
4 the thing the court did. One thing they did for me is, they also didn’t give the advanced medical
directive, power of attorney to Mark to be the conservator. He wanted to be the conservator
,
26 they tuned it down, but since they can’t give him the conservatorship because you gave him
the
2 Goddamn power of attorney.”
28 Rosemary: “I did?” 3
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMP! ‘LAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL,
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY Di )UTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
‘Mr. Léaitiye="¥es! Yes you did!”
Rosemary: “To help him with his job.”
Mr. Leahy: “I don’t care what it is for. It’s there!”
Rosemary: “It was to help him with his job.”
Mr. Leahy Leahy: “Fucking screwed me!”
45. In January 2021, recordings were made of Mr. Leahy discussing matters wit defendant
caregivers Susan Reynolds and Patricia Wollum. During such conversations:
+ Mr Leahy talks at great length with defendants Susan Reynolds and Patricia Wollum
10 about the legal proceedings in front of Rosemary;
I + Mr. Leahy confirms he has also spoken in recent days about the legal proceedings with|
2 Rosemary;
13 + When Rosemary attempts to excuse herself from the conversation he is having with
4 defendant Patricia Wollum; Mr. Leahy tells Rosemary to remain;
1s * Mr. Leahy disparages Rosemary's family members, including Mark especially;
16 + Mr. Leahy threatens Rosemary with being placed in a nursing home (one of her
7 greatest fears).
18 + Mr. Leahy berates Rosemary regarding her memory and tells her she knows nothing.
19 + Mr. Leahy receives coaching and/or advice from defendant Patricia Wollum about how!
20 to best defeat the claims being made against him;
a1 + Mr. Leaby aud defendant Patricia Wollam collude and discuss the best way for Mr.
2 Leahy to defeat the abuse, clainas being, made against him, including statements that Mr. Leahy
should make to the: Comp maacie te the Court; and
4 + In responsete déftiidant Patricia Wollum’s concerns about her wrongdoing and
potentially beitg ixplicnied in this matter, Mr. Leahy assures defendant Patricia Wollum that he
will not discloss their conversations te suyone.
2 46. The caregivers bined by Rosemary’s Conservator, Courtney DeSoto, including but not
is
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER. :; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
limited to defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, were made aware of the court
proceedings concerning the abuse being committed by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary and knew
that the legal proceedings involving Rosemary were not to be discussed in front of Rosemary at
any time. Despite such knowledge, not only did caregiver defendants Patricia Wollum and
Susan Reynolds discuss such proceedings in front of Rosemary, they encouraged Mr. Leahy to
‘discuss such proceedings in front of Rosemary by asking him questions about such matters in
front of Rosemary. Further, as shown in the attached transcripts, portions of which are set forth
‘below, each of them negligently, recklessly, and intentionally colluded and/or conspired with Mr.
Leahy to try to assist him with trying to defeat the elder abuse claims which had been made
10 against him.
ul 47. Not only did defendant caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds know that there
12 ‘was a Court Order in place specifically prohibiting Mr. Leahy from discussing legal proceedings
13 in front of Rosemary and from disparaging Rosemary’s family members, as caregivers who were|
14 hired and paid to provide care for Rosemary, common sense dictates that they should not discuss
15 such matters with or in front of Rosemary, as they knew such discussions were distressing and
16 confusing to Rosemary. As shown in the attached transcripts, Mr. Leahy verbally abused
7 Rosemary in front of them and they did nothing, not even alerting the Conservator or
18 Rosemary’s court-appointed counsel of such abuse.
19 48. Defendant caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds were not just negligent; each
of them recklessly and/or intentionally engaged in conduct which caused.Rosemary significant
2 emotional distress and which, in and of itself, constitutes elder abuse under California’s Elder
2 Abuse Act (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610, et seq.). Examples of suck conduct are as
23 follows: (i) they failed to report Mr. Leahy’s repeated verbal abuse of’ ‘Rosemary; (ti) they asked
Mr. Leahy about the court proceedings in front of Rosemary, knxrwi
thai suchng
nratters were not!
to be discussed in front of her; (iii) they failed to report thet Mn. Leahy was disparaging
26 Rosemary’s family members; (iv) they intentional!y omitted suck information flonrtke reports
a that they made to Rosemary’s Conservator; (v) they advised Mr, Leahy as to whi
he should say
and/or how he should act in such proceedings in'érder to attempt to assist Mr. Leahy from being
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
\LPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DI
NEGLIGENCE
held accountable for his abuse of Rosemary; and (vi) they filed reports with Rosemary’s
Conservator containing false and disparaging information about Rosemary's family.
Wil
49. The demurrer filed by caregiver defendants Pxitici# Wollum and Susan Reynolds alleges
that the claims made by Plaintiffs in the FAC lacked thé “particularity” required by law and
failed to include sufficient allegations to give rise to the causes of action against defendants
Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds for elder abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
and negligence. In order to address such claims, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated
herein by reference, is a written transcript of conversations which occurred on January 9, 2021,
10 involving Mr. Leahy, Rosemary, and defendant Patricia Wollum. The transcript attached as
u Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference, is the conversation that occurred primarily between
12 Mr. Leahy and caregiver defendant Susan Reynolds, in Rosemary’s presence. Becky and
13 Rosemary's granddaughter Amanda Sellars (“Amanda”), and Merk’s spouse, Belinda Sellars
4 (“Belinda”), were also recorded and are part of the transcript. Suck transcripts are damning for
15 defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds and dispel any possible defenses to the claims
16 made against them in this action.
"7 50. Both Ms. Wollum and Ms. Reynolds were hired and paid to provide care for Rosemary.
18 Each of them were aware that Mr. Leahy had claims pending against him for abusing Rosemary.
19 Each of them were further aware that a restraining order had been entered in the Elder Abuse
20 Restraining Order Matter which, in relevant part, prohibited Mr. Leahy from discussing the
a ongoing legal proceedings in front of Rosemary or disparaging Rosemary's relatives.
51. One of the primary purposes of the California's Elder Abuse and DependentsAdult Civil
2B Protection Act (the “Act”) is defined as follows:
24 “Therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to provide that
25 adult protective services agencies, local long}ecto cars ombudsman programs, and
local law enforcement agencies shall receive teferrals ox odnyplaints from public or
26 private agencies, from any mandated reporter subthitting Yeports pursdant to
Section 15630, or from any other source having reasonsblz cases to Know that the
27 welfare of an elder or dependent adult is endangered, and shuli take exy actions
28 considered necessary to protect the eller or dependent aduit and correct the
PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL
\CTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF EMOTIONAL
NEGLIGENCE
situation and ensure the individual's safety. (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600
et seq.)
Thus, the, Act requires health practitioners, care custodians, clergy members, and
employees of county adult protective services agencies and local law enforcement agencies
to report known or suspected cases of abuse of elders and dependent adults.
52. As defendant caregivers Wollum and Reynolds assumed significant responsibility for
attending to Rosemary’s basic needs, they had a caretaking and/or custodial relationship with
Rosemary, an elder and dependent adult. As caregivers and/or care custodians, defendant
caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds had the duty to, at the very least, report the
10 abusive actions of Mr Leahy and failed to do so. They were just negligent by failing to report
u such abuse. They intentionally omitted such information from the reports they filed with
Rosemary’s Conservator. In addition, as explained above, they also asked Mr. Leahy about the
12
13 court proceedings in front of Rosemary, knowing that such matters were not t s
Preview
DavidJ. Tappeiner (SBN 243979) RIMON LAW. P. 3 West Carrillo St, Suite 216, Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 892-7177 Email: David.Tappeiner@ rimonlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiffs, Mark Sellars, Individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin, Conservator of the Estate and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVSION 10 11 September 13, 2000; and t MARK SELLARS, individu all and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free tust u/d/t dated REBECCA MORIN, ) Case No. 20CV 04132 [Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Thoma: 12 Conservator of the Estate and Person of ) P. Anderle] Rosemary Free Leahy, 13 DECLARATION OF DAVIDJ. Plaintiffs, TAPPEINER REGARDING 14 PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED vs. COMPLAINT 15 PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE 16 LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a California corporation; PATRICIA 17 WOLLUM; SUSAN REY NOLDS; HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA, 18 INC., a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 I, DavidJ. Tappeiner, hereby declare as follows: 24 1 Tam an attomey duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, under State 25 Bar No. 243979. I am a partner at RIMON LAW, P.C., and legal counsel for Plaintiffs. , 26 2 Attached hereto is a marked-up copy of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, 27 showing all revisions made. 28 il 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. TAPPEINER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Santa Barbara, Califomia this 12" day of January 2024. /s/ David]. Tappeiner a DavidJ. Tappeiner 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. TAPPEINER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT David J. Te sppeines Sa 243979) DI LAW 125 East Victoria, Suite T Santa Barbara, ae a Telephor Facsit 805; BS 038 Email Attorneys for Plain lars, Individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust wd/t dated September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin, Conservator of the Estate and Person of Rosemary Free y SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION 10 MARK SELLARS, init al and as Case No. 20CV04132 u Trustee of the Rosemary rust u/d/t dated September 13, 200 0: and REBECCA 12 MO! , Conservator of the Estate and Person of Rosemary Free > sf (A: ssigned for all purposes to Hon. ‘homas P. Anderle} 13 PLAINTIFFS” Plaintiffs, AS ERPERTUIRD AMENDED 4 vs. 15 1. ELD) PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, FINANCIAL, ELDER ABUSE; 16 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. LEGAL MALPRACTICE; PATRICIA WOLLUM; Regan COLES, a California cor pee OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; Ww AL BrctoN OF LDS; NOR’ HOME CARE EMOTIONAL DISTRE! 18 SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC, a 6. NEGLIGENCE, Delaware corporation doin; business in 19 California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, NO TRIAL DATE SET Defendants. 2 22 23 Plaintiffs Mark Sellars, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and Rebecca Morin , Conservator of the Estate-and Person of Rosemary Free 25 Leahy, y and through their attorneys, DT LAW PARTNERS; LLF, submit this Second 26 27 AmendedThird Amended Complaint for Elder Abuse; Financial Elder Abuse; Legal Malpractice; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Negligence against the )ED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABI ; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FID JUCIARY DUTY} INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF PMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE defendants identified above and remaining Doe Defendants 1-10 (individually and collectively. “Defendsnts”), and in support thereof allege as follows: L THIS SECOND-AMENDEDTHIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NECESSARY IN JRDER TO ADD HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., AS A “DOE”! DEFENDANT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ENDING DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY DEFENDANT! CHANNE COLES AND THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLE: 10 1 Rosemary Free Leahy (“Rosemary”) began suffering from cognitive disabilities in or u around 2017. As soon as Rosemary became compromised, her third-husband, Patrick Leahy (“Mr. 12 Leahy”), started to abuse Rosemary, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. Because of the abusg 13 committed against Rosemary by Mr. Leahy, her son, Mark Sellars (“Mark”), filed to have 4 Rosemary conserved on December 5, 2018, which was ultimately granted. Rosemary is now 92) 15 years old. Unfortunately, her dementia is now so advanced that she has had to be moved from her 16 home to a memory care facility, something Rosemary wished would never happen. 7 2. As Mark had been designated by Rosemary to act as her Conservator, in his Petition for 18 Appointment of Probate Conservator for Rosemary in related case Jn Re: Conservatorship of the 19 Estate and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 18PR00576 20 (the “Conservatorship Proceeding”), Mark requested that he be appointed as Rosemary’s a Conservator. As explained further below, as Mr. Leahy filed a meritless objection to Mark’: request, a temporary conservatorship was established for Rosemary by Court order dated March) 21, 2019 (filed on March 26, 2019, the same date Letters of Temporary Conservatorship were issued), appointing professional fiduciary Jacquelyn Quinn as Rosemary’s temporary Conservator! Ms. Quinn later became the general Conservator for Rosemary 3. On December 11, 2020, Mark individually and as current Trustee of his mother’s trust, the 27 28 2 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL, MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND sLIGENCE Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”), filed his elder abuse complaint (the “Original Complaint”) in this matter against Mr. Leahy, the sole named defendant at that time. 4. Prior to February 10, 2022, as explained further below, professional conservators Jacquelyn Quinn and then Courtney DeSoto served as Rosemary’s conservators. On February 10, 2022, Rosemary’s daughter and Plaintiff herein, Rebecca Morin (“Becky”), was appointed ag Rosemary’s Conservator and continues to act in that capacity. 5. After Becky was appointed as her mother’s Conservator, and after Mark was able to take Mr. Leahy’s Deposition in this case, and the occurrence of the other events described hereinafter, 10 evidence was discovered which supports the claims made herein against the recently added} u defendants, attorney Channe Coles, the Law Office of Channe G. Coles, and caregivers Patricia 12 Wollum (“Wollum”) and Susan Reynolds (“Reynolds”), each of whom were added as defendants 13 pursuant to Plaintiffs” First Amended Complaint dated January 23, 2023 (the “FAC’), which was 4 proved by the Court pursuant to Mark’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. 15 6. When Mark filed his Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, based on] 16 information that was provided to Becky and Mark, it was believed that a company known as Help| 7 Unlimited, Inc., was the employer of defendant caregivers Reynolds and Wollum. As such, the 18 Court approved the request to add Help Unlimited, Inc., as an additional defendant. 19 7. On April 26, 2023, attorney Channe Coles and the Law Office of Channe G. Coles filed 20 a demurrer to the FAC and a motion to strike certain portions of the FAC. 2 8. After the FAC was filed, it was discovered that Honor Home Care Services California, Inc. 22 (“Honor”), was the employer of defendants Wollum and Reynolds rather than Help Unlimited, 23 Inc., as originally believed. Based on such discovery, on or about May 26, 2023, Plaintifis filed 24 an amendment to the FAC, seeking to substitute Honor as a defendant in place of Help Unlimited, Inc., and to dismiss Help Unlimited, Inc., as a defendant, without prejudice. 26 27 28. Op Jaitary 23, 2023, the Court approved Mark’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and such Fit, fended Complaint (the “FAC”) was filed on the same date. ‘SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL Migueeacricns BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE 9. The above-referenced amendment was approved and Honor was served with the summons and complaint. Thereafter, after Honor was served, it was discovered that Honor has no affiliation, with Help Unlimited, Inc. As such, the above-referenced amendment was ineffective to add Honor as a defendant in this action. Accordingly, on July 11, 2023, Honor was dismissed as a defendant) without prejudice. However, under Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File this Second AmendedThird Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to add Honor as a defendant. 10. On June 20, 2023, defendants Wollum and Reynolds filed a joint demurrer and motion t strike, which have since been withdrawn. 11. The demurrer and motion to strike filed by attorney Channe Coles and the Law Office o! 10 Channe G. Coles (the “Coles’ Defendants”) remain pending. At the hearing on August 16, 2023. u this Court ordered Plaintiffs to file their revised motion for leave to file this Second-Amended Third 12 Amended Complaint. 13 IL. 4 CURRENT PARTIES, 15 12. Mark is Rosemary’s biological son and the current Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trus' 16 w/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”), which trust held most of Rosemary’s assets 7 since it was established 18 13, Becky is Rosemary’s biological daughter and the court-appointed Conservator of 19 Rosemary’s Estate and Person in the Conservatorship Proceeding. 14. Mr. Leahy is Rosemary’s spouse and, at all times mentioned herein, was an individual 2 residing in Santa Barbara County, California. 22 15. Defendant Channe Coles is a duly licensed attorney by the State Bar of California practicing in Santa Barbara County, State Bar Number 261234. 16. Defendant The Law Office of Chane G. Coles is a California corporation doing business in Santa Barbara at 19 East Mission Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 17. For the reasons stated above, defendant Help Unlimited, Inc., has been dismissed without_| 2 prejudice. 28 18. Defendant Wollum is or was employed bly Honor and was paid to provide caregiving PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL RACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND AGENCE services to Rosemary and, in connection with such services, engaged in wrongful acts al Rosemary’s home in Santa Barbara County, which acts caused injury to Rosemary. Wit 19. Similarly, Defendant Reynolds is or was employed by Honor and was paid to provide caregiving services to Rosemary and, in connection with such services, engaged in wrongful acts at Rosemary’s home in Santa Barbara County, which acts caused injury to Rosemary. 20. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs are filing their Motion for Leave to file this Seeond-AmendedThird Amended Complain to add Honor as a defendant and to address issucs 10 raised by the Coles’ Defendants in their Demurrer and Motion to Strike. Honor is a Delaware ut corporation doing business in California, with its principal place of business is at 201 3rd Street] 12 Suite 1010, San Francisco, California 94103. 13 21. Remaining Does | through 10, inclusive, are individuals, corporations, partnerships, or 4 other entities whose identity and form are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said) 1s individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entities under such fictitious names, pursuant to thd 16 provisions of Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Pros jure. Plaintiffs will amend thi: 7 Complaint to allege the true names and capacitiev, of sevsti viduals, corporations, partnerships 18 or other entities at such time as the same have, heer’ phettlioed Plaintiffs are informed an¢ 19 believe, and based thereon allege, that each of Pksapay tamed individuals, corporations, 20 partnerships or other entities is liable and respoitaibie ht Site ‘mémner for the claims, demands, a losses, acts, and damages alleged herein. 22. Plaintiffs believe and allege that the tortious acts and omissions of Defendants and 2B the fictitiously named individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entities, and each of them, were done in concert with each other and pursuant to a common design and agreement t 25 accomplish a particular result, and that Defendants and the fictitiously named individuals, 26 corporations, partnerships or othe esiiges, and each of them, enabled, aided and abetted each other 2 in accomplishing the acts and ¢ alleged herein. iit ‘FLAINFWFS' SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL ‘644,RTACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND (EGLIGENCE. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 23. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction” in all other causes” except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 24. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and belief, the individually named defendants are citizens of the United States and at all times relevant hereto did reside in Santa Barbara County, California and/or each defendant has sufficient minimum contacts in California or have otherwise intentionally availed themselves of the 10 California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over such defendants by the u California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 12 25. Venue is proper in this Court because all of the wrongs committed against 13 Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County, the corporate defendants maintain offices, 4 have agents, and/or transact business in the State of California, in Santa Barbara County, and, at 1s all relevant times hereto, the individually named defendants resided here or have otherwise 16 consented to venue here. In addition, the Conservatorship Proceeding for Rosemary remains 7 pending here. te Iv. 19 ROSEMARY’S BACKGROUND, EVENTS LEADING TO INITIATION OF CONSERVATORSHIP FOR ROSEMARY AND ELDER ABUSE OF ROSEMAR' 21 ENGAGED IN BY MR. LEAHY 26. Rosemary was a lifelong medical professional... Ss received her degree from Columbia 23 University, became the Director of Nurses at Santa #xzbeta Cottage Hospital, and eventually 24 served as the Nursing Administrator of the USC-LAC miédical center. 25 27. Rosemary raised her children as a single-mother and worked hard to build a home for 26 them in Santa Barbara despite her commutes to Los Angeles for many years. a 28. Through her hard work, Rosemary took care ofher children, acquired assets and was 28 6 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND: COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE financially secure. Rosemary was always smart, tough, and opinionated and valued her family over anything else. Wil 29, Before marrying Mr. Leahy in 1999, Rosemary had a Premarital Agreement prepared and executed in order to ensure that her assets were protected in the case of a divorce from Mr. Leahy. While Rosemary owned substantial assets that time of marriage, including her home, Mr. Leahy had virtually no assets. Rosemary repeatedly told Mark that she did not want Mz. Leahy to be in charge of any of her finances. She also made this clear in her estate planning documents, 10 prohibiting Mr. Leahy from acting as her trustee or agent. u 30. In addition to the Premarital Agreement, Rosemary executed estate planning documents 12 in September 2000, under which Mark was named as her successor Trustee, Executor, and 13 primary agent for health and financial decisions. 14 31. As explained above, as Mr. Leahy continued to abuse Rosemary, which included 15 isolating her from her family and cutting off all communications, Mark had no choice but to file 16 his petition to have Rosemary conserved. 7 32. As part of his scheme to keep Rosemary isolated, Mr. Leahy removed Rosemary from the| 18 care of her primary physician, Dr. Robert Byers, who had been Rosemary’s physician for at least 19 15 years. In 2017, Dr. Byers indicated that he believed that Rosemary might be suffering from carly Alzheimer’s Disease and ordered further testing. Future appointments were scheduled for 21 Rosemary in orderto have hier futher evaluated. As soon as Mr. Leahy learned of Dr. Byers 22 diagnosis and realized the uncovering of his abuse and financial wrongdoings were imminent, he 23 panicked and removed Rosemary fmm the care of Dr. Byers. 24 33. Although Rosemary was experiencing cognitive dectine, she still had the ability to understand that she aeeded sssigtanes. She sought such assistance from her children and adult grandchildren snd did got seak asgistence ftom Mr, Leahy because she knew he could not be 2 trusted. 28 34. Prior to the time Mark commenced the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary asked PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND: COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTI sLIGENCE Mark to move into her home in 2017, to evaluate her situation and render assistance. It was clear} to Mark at that time that his mother was beginning to have memory isso» and ziedded help, so Mark agreed. Wit 35. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home to assist her, he learned hat her prescriptions were cut off due to numerous missed doctor’s appointments. Rosemary could not drive and had| been relying on Mr. Leahy to assist her with maintaining appointments and for transportation. A: part of his overall plan, Mr. Leahy ensured that Rosemary was not treated for her cognitive difficulties and that her prescriptions went unfilled. 10 36. In addition to the foregoing, Mark discovered serious financial issues concerning ul Rosemary, including but not limited to the fact that the amount of money that was being spent on) 12 gambling by Rosemary and Mr. Leahy (primarily using Rosemary’s money) was many times 13 greater than Rosemary allocated towards gambling when she had capacity. 4 37. Mr. Leahy exercised control over and unduly influenced Rosemary, his impaired wife, in 1s ways that allowed him: feigeany and physically isolate her from her familiar network of protection] 16 email, Skype, phone dis si regular visits with her family. "7 38. Mark, Becky, and other of Rosemary’s family attempted hundreds of contacts with 18 Rosemary that were unsuccessful due to Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation of Rosemary and his 19 attempts to unduly influence Rosemary to fear her family. 39. Examples of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary before and after a conservator was a appointed for her include and are not limited to the following: a. At the first supervised visit with Rosemary in March 2019, mediator Lol Sorenson reported that Rosemary did sit: she was not seeing her family and thereby 4 confirmed Mr. Leahy’s isolation and abus¢ of cosemary; b. For the first family unsupervised visit in April 2019, Mr. Leahy was told by the temporary conservator not to be present but was present and disrupted the visit. 2 ©. Mr. Leahy kept the only working landline phone behind a locked home office door. 8 PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND sLIGENCE d. Mr. Leahy continually interfered with Rosemary’s ability to communicass with family members (e.g., phones unplugged from phone-jacks, tampering with her celi pfs.) e. Mr. Leahy routinely unduly influenced Rosemary prior to visitations by family to spoil visits. f Mr. Leahy removed Rosemary from her home prior to scheduled visitations (eg., Easter 2019). 8 Mr. Leahy attempted to remove Rosemary from her home prior to visitation (the family caught him leaving as they arrived). The visit was unpleasant and cut short because o Mr. Leahy (Thanksgiving 2019). 10 h. Throughout 2020, Mr. Leahy tampered with Rosemary’s communications u to prevent contact with family. ‘This included using the pandemic to limit phone and in person] 12 communications and visits. 13 i Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino at least 16 times since 4 the pandemic began, five of which times occurred after he was clearly admonished not to do so 1s by Courtney DeSoto, Rosemary’s Conservator at the time. During this same time period, Mr. 16 Leahy had a sign posted on Rosemary’s door that read “No Visitors Please! We are vulnerable "7 and don’t want to get the virus.” He used COVID as a pretense to prevent family contact 18 between Rosemary and her family. 19 J Mr. Leahy paraded Rosemary to the Courthouse during the pandemic. He had her stand next to him, as a prop, while he said: “[w]e object” to the fee request made by aa Mark in the Conservatorship Proceeding. 2 k. Mr. Leahy thereafter again exploited and abused Rosemary when he had 23 her read from a script that he provided to her during the remote October 15, 2020 hearing in the Conservatorship Proceeding. 28 1 Later, on October 15, 2020, Mr. Leahy unduly interfered with Mark’s attempt to visit Rosemary. This event, coupled with other nefarious actions taken by 2 caused Rosemary’s then-acting conservator, Courtney DeSoto, to have to seek a 28 against Mr. Leahy, Case No. 20CV04056 (the “Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter.”) PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL ‘MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND IEGLIGENCE. 1 40. Further evidence of Mr. {eahy’s abuse of Rosemary has since been uncovered. The list is long so only some of the mor¢ #428/9us actions undertaken by Mr. Leahy are described below: a. Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino repeatedly, even after being told not by Rosemary’s Conservator, and used her money in order to gamble himself; b. Mr. Leahy facilitated and encouraged Rosemary to take a $50,000 HELOC against her house in order to pay for gambling and/cit cower gambling losses and then lied to this Court’s investigator, claiming that the money was fost through an “oil scam” that Rosemary became involved with; however, the conservatorship investigation concluded more than half the 10 money was lost gambling; u ©. Mr. Leahy used Rosemary’s credit cards and/or other assets to pay for expenses o 12 his own children, including paying legal fees for his daughter, Joy; 13 d. Mr. Leahy had an ongoing affair with a woman named Cheri Limon and lied “ about it to Rosemary and others; 15 e. Mr. Leahy falsified a vehicle loan application and used Rosemary’s income and 16 credit in order to purchase a BMW costing almost $80,000, which Mr. Leahy has used almost "7 exclusively for himself: 18 f. Mr. Leahy terminated Rosemary’s relationship with Dr. Byers and instead took 19 her to a completely unqualified physician out of the area, in an effort to avoid or forestall a 20 finding that Rosemary was incapacitated; a g. Mr. Leahy engaged attorney Chane Coles to object to the conservatorship 2 proceeding in order to avoid having a conservator appointed because he feared the conservator 23 would uncover his financial and other abuses of Rosemary; h. Mr. Leahy has repeatedly disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to others; i Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to Rosemary herself; J Mr. Leahy has enlisted and/or indoctrinated others, including Rosemary’s 27 caregivers, in an attempt to cover his tracks and to try to make Mark and other family members 28 look bad before this Court; 10 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ‘OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE k. Mr. Leahy has abused Rosemary in violation of this Court’s orders by intentionally discussing the pending legal proceedings with Rosemary and by disparaging Mark by telling Rosemary that Mark does not love her and by threatening Rosemary by telling her that if she did not go along with his “plan,” she would end up in a nursing home, knowing fill well that Rosemary had made it abundantly clear that she wanted to be cared for her in her own home. 1 Mr. Leahy has been emotionally abusing Rosemary ever since she became incapacitated. Even after Becky moved into Rosemary’s Home and became her Conservator, Becky has witnessed Mr. Leahy violate this Court’s orders in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter) by: (i) discussing these ongoing legal proceeding directly with Rosemary and with 10 Rosemary’s caregivers in front of Rosemary; (ii) disparaging all of Rosemary’s family, including} I Becky herself; and i) intimidating threatening, and harassing Rosemary. 12 V. 13 ABUSE STRAT ING ORDER, REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF SUCH 14 JR BYM) JEAHY AN) RR A IVE) 1s ATRI! WOLLUM AND SUSAN SYNOLD: 16 41. The Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter is an action that was commenced by 7 Rosemary's former conservator, Courtney DeSoto, against Mr. Leahy due to Mr. Leahy’s 18 continued abuse of Rosemary and interference with communications and visits between 19 Rosemary and her family. On December 11, 2020, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining, Order in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter, a true and correct copy of which is attached a hereto as Exhibit A and incorporsteé bestin by reference. That Order provides as follows: “1. Patrick Leahy must allw sitiy'telative of Rosemary Free Leahy to visit with her 23 either, in person or by telephone, as long as the visit is consistent with all of the following a. Occurs at a reasonable time and is of a reasonable length; 26 b. The relative does not disparage Patrick Leahy during the visit; and, a c. The visit is consistent with the Covid 19 guidelines, recommendations, and restrictions in effect at the time of the visit. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL Di ‘AND NEGLIGENCE 2. Patrick Leahy is not to upset Rosemary Free Leahy by talking with her about the ongoing legal proceedings and, in response to any of her questions regarding such matters, should refer her to her lawyer for answers. 3. Patrick Leahy may not take Rosemary Free Leahy from her home except as approved by her conservator and only then as long as the visit is consistent with the Covid 19 guidelines, recommendations, and restrictions in effect at the time. 4, Patrick Leahy shall not prevent any relative of Rosemary Free Leahy from visiting her at any reasonable time and shall not try to influence her to refuse any such visit. 5. Patrick Leahy shall not speak with Rosemary Free Leahy in any manner which 10 disparages her relatives. "1 6. Patrick Leahy shall not take Rosemary Free Leahy to any casino or other place of 12 gambling. 13 7. Patrick Leahy shall not interfere with caregivers, including family members, who are 4 authorized by the conservator to care for Rosemary Free Leahy.” 15 42. The additional orders entered by the Court were: 16 “1, Any relative of Rosemary Free Leahy is allowed to visit with her either, in 7 person or by telephone, as long as the visit is consistent with all of the following: 18 a. Occurs at a reasonable time and is of a reasonable length; 19 b. The relative does not disparage Patrick Leahy during the visit; and, c. The visit is consistent with the Uovid 19 guidelines, recommendations, a and restrictions in effect at thetime of the visit. 22 2. Neither Patrick Leahy nor any of the relatives of Rosemary Free Leahy are to 2B upset her by talking with her about the ongoing legal proceedings and, in response| 24 to any of her questions regarding such matters, should refer her to her lawyer for answers. 26 3. No one may take Rosemary Free Leahy from her home except as approved by a7 her conservator and only then as long as the visit is consistent with the Covid 19 28 guidelines, recommendations, and“restrictions in effect at the time. PLAINTIFFS’ SEGOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL, MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; (FLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE 4. Any person may make an audio and/or video recording of any visit provided that a copy of such audio or video is sent to counsel for the conservator and counsel for the conservatce within a reasonable time after the recording.” 43. The recordings authorized by the Court in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter not only confirmed Mr. Leahy’s continued abuse of Rosemary but also revealed that caregiver defendants Wollum and Reynolds were not only negligent but engaged in conduct which caused Rosemary substantial emotional distress and themselves and abused Rosemary by, inter alia: (i) conspiring with Mr. Leahy to conceal his abuse and to cast Rosemary's family members in a negative light; (ii) discussed the distressing legal matters with Mr, Leahy in front of Rosemary 10 despite the fact that each of them were aware that such matters were not to be discussed in front of Rosemary; (iii) failed to report the ongoing abuse of Rosemary by Mr Leahy which they 12 witnessed; (iv) intentionally did not include information about Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary 13 in the reports they filed with Rosemary’s Conservator; and (v) in an attempt to cast Rosemary’s 4 family members. in a false tight, filed knowingly false reports with Rosemary’s Conservator, 15 accusing Rosemary*s fixity members of engaging in conduct which they did not engage in, 16 which reports were veduied in their entirety by actual evidence. " 44, Following is just one example of the emotional abuse by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary 18 which was ciptured on the recordings authorized by the Court in connection with the Elder 19 Abjiwse Restraining Order Matter: Mir. Leahy speaking to Rosemary (see Exhibit B attached): 2 Mr. Leahy: “You told me..., You told them in the living trust that I am not to handle any 2 of our finances or any of your affairs if you have medical problems. Well guess what? You have 23 moderate dementia; it has been verified by the Court. You have a conservator because of that; 4 the thing the court did. One thing they did for me is, they also didn’t give the advanced medical directive, power of attorney to Mark to be the conservator. He wanted to be the conservator , 26 they tuned it down, but since they can’t give him the conservatorship because you gave him the 2 Goddamn power of attorney.” 28 Rosemary: “I did?” 3 PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMP! ‘LAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL, MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY Di )UTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND ‘Mr. Léaitiye="¥es! Yes you did!” Rosemary: “To help him with his job.” Mr. Leahy: “I don’t care what it is for. It’s there!” Rosemary: “It was to help him with his job.” Mr. Leahy Leahy: “Fucking screwed me!” 45. In January 2021, recordings were made of Mr. Leahy discussing matters wit defendant caregivers Susan Reynolds and Patricia Wollum. During such conversations: + Mr Leahy talks at great length with defendants Susan Reynolds and Patricia Wollum 10 about the legal proceedings in front of Rosemary; I + Mr. Leahy confirms he has also spoken in recent days about the legal proceedings with| 2 Rosemary; 13 + When Rosemary attempts to excuse herself from the conversation he is having with 4 defendant Patricia Wollum; Mr. Leahy tells Rosemary to remain; 1s * Mr. Leahy disparages Rosemary's family members, including Mark especially; 16 + Mr. Leahy threatens Rosemary with being placed in a nursing home (one of her 7 greatest fears). 18 + Mr. Leahy berates Rosemary regarding her memory and tells her she knows nothing. 19 + Mr. Leahy receives coaching and/or advice from defendant Patricia Wollum about how! 20 to best defeat the claims being made against him; a1 + Mr. Leaby aud defendant Patricia Wollam collude and discuss the best way for Mr. 2 Leahy to defeat the abuse, clainas being, made against him, including statements that Mr. Leahy should make to the: Comp maacie te the Court; and 4 + In responsete déftiidant Patricia Wollum’s concerns about her wrongdoing and potentially beitg ixplicnied in this matter, Mr. Leahy assures defendant Patricia Wollum that he will not discloss their conversations te suyone. 2 46. The caregivers bined by Rosemary’s Conservator, Courtney DeSoto, including but not is PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER. :; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE limited to defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, were made aware of the court proceedings concerning the abuse being committed by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary and knew that the legal proceedings involving Rosemary were not to be discussed in front of Rosemary at any time. Despite such knowledge, not only did caregiver defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds discuss such proceedings in front of Rosemary, they encouraged Mr. Leahy to ‘discuss such proceedings in front of Rosemary by asking him questions about such matters in front of Rosemary. Further, as shown in the attached transcripts, portions of which are set forth ‘below, each of them negligently, recklessly, and intentionally colluded and/or conspired with Mr. Leahy to try to assist him with trying to defeat the elder abuse claims which had been made 10 against him. ul 47. Not only did defendant caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds know that there 12 ‘was a Court Order in place specifically prohibiting Mr. Leahy from discussing legal proceedings 13 in front of Rosemary and from disparaging Rosemary’s family members, as caregivers who were| 14 hired and paid to provide care for Rosemary, common sense dictates that they should not discuss 15 such matters with or in front of Rosemary, as they knew such discussions were distressing and 16 confusing to Rosemary. As shown in the attached transcripts, Mr. Leahy verbally abused 7 Rosemary in front of them and they did nothing, not even alerting the Conservator or 18 Rosemary’s court-appointed counsel of such abuse. 19 48. Defendant caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds were not just negligent; each of them recklessly and/or intentionally engaged in conduct which caused.Rosemary significant 2 emotional distress and which, in and of itself, constitutes elder abuse under California’s Elder 2 Abuse Act (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610, et seq.). Examples of suck conduct are as 23 follows: (i) they failed to report Mr. Leahy’s repeated verbal abuse of’ ‘Rosemary; (ti) they asked Mr. Leahy about the court proceedings in front of Rosemary, knxrwi thai suchng nratters were not! to be discussed in front of her; (iii) they failed to report thet Mn. Leahy was disparaging 26 Rosemary’s family members; (iv) they intentional!y omitted suck information flonrtke reports a that they made to Rosemary’s Conservator; (v) they advised Mr, Leahy as to whi he should say and/or how he should act in such proceedings in'érder to attempt to assist Mr. Leahy from being PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL \LPRACTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DI NEGLIGENCE held accountable for his abuse of Rosemary; and (vi) they filed reports with Rosemary’s Conservator containing false and disparaging information about Rosemary's family. Wil 49. The demurrer filed by caregiver defendants Pxitici# Wollum and Susan Reynolds alleges that the claims made by Plaintiffs in the FAC lacked thé “particularity” required by law and failed to include sufficient allegations to give rise to the causes of action against defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds for elder abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. In order to address such claims, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference, is a written transcript of conversations which occurred on January 9, 2021, 10 involving Mr. Leahy, Rosemary, and defendant Patricia Wollum. The transcript attached as u Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference, is the conversation that occurred primarily between 12 Mr. Leahy and caregiver defendant Susan Reynolds, in Rosemary’s presence. Becky and 13 Rosemary's granddaughter Amanda Sellars (“Amanda”), and Merk’s spouse, Belinda Sellars 4 (“Belinda”), were also recorded and are part of the transcript. Suck transcripts are damning for 15 defendants Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds and dispel any possible defenses to the claims 16 made against them in this action. "7 50. Both Ms. Wollum and Ms. Reynolds were hired and paid to provide care for Rosemary. 18 Each of them were aware that Mr. Leahy had claims pending against him for abusing Rosemary. 19 Each of them were further aware that a restraining order had been entered in the Elder Abuse 20 Restraining Order Matter which, in relevant part, prohibited Mr. Leahy from discussing the a ongoing legal proceedings in front of Rosemary or disparaging Rosemary's relatives. 51. One of the primary purposes of the California's Elder Abuse and DependentsAdult Civil 2B Protection Act (the “Act”) is defined as follows: 24 “Therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to provide that 25 adult protective services agencies, local long}ecto cars ombudsman programs, and local law enforcement agencies shall receive teferrals ox odnyplaints from public or 26 private agencies, from any mandated reporter subthitting Yeports pursdant to Section 15630, or from any other source having reasonsblz cases to Know that the 27 welfare of an elder or dependent adult is endangered, and shuli take exy actions 28 considered necessary to protect the eller or dependent aduit and correct the PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL \CTICE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONOF EMOTIONAL NEGLIGENCE situation and ensure the individual's safety. (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq.) Thus, the, Act requires health practitioners, care custodians, clergy members, and employees of county adult protective services agencies and local law enforcement agencies to report known or suspected cases of abuse of elders and dependent adults. 52. As defendant caregivers Wollum and Reynolds assumed significant responsibility for attending to Rosemary’s basic needs, they had a caretaking and/or custodial relationship with Rosemary, an elder and dependent adult. As caregivers and/or care custodians, defendant caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds had the duty to, at the very least, report the 10 abusive actions of Mr Leahy and failed to do so. They were just negligent by failing to report u such abuse. They intentionally omitted such information from the reports they filed with Rosemary’s Conservator. In addition, as explained above, they also asked Mr. Leahy about the 12 13 court proceedings in front of Rosemary, knowing that such matters were not t s