Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
Marilyn R. Victor (State Bar No. 156230) County of Santa Barbara
mvictor@wshblaw.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Ashton L. McKinnon (State Bar No. 310226) 3/22/2024 3:07 PM
amckinnon@wshblaw.com By: Sarah Sisto , Deputy
Kevin I. Kilroy (State Bar No. 350730)
kkilroy@wshblaw.com
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215
Thousand Oaks, California 91361-5827,
Phone: (820) 333-4250 Fax: (820) 333-4249
Attorneys for Defendant HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES
CALIFORNIA. INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ANACAPA DIVISION
11
og
as
wey
2E8
N58 12 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee Case No. 20CV04132
58 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Thomas Anderle,
S88
Be 13 September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, Dept. 3]
qos8 Conservator of the Estate and Person of
oa?
BE
uss 14 Rosemary Free Leahy, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
oe
eS zz SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH
5508
2925
gue 15 Plaintiff, SERVICE OF THIRD AMENDED
$28
658 SUMMONS AND THIRD AMENDED
Kow
Qye2 16 Vv. COMPLAINT
Bad
Roz
o4
Za
Ze 17 PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion
LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a and Motion to Quash Service of Summons
18 California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM; and Complaint; [Proposed] Orde] |
SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a
19 California corporation; and DOES 1-10, DATE: May 1, 2024
inclusive, TIME: 10:00 a.m.
20 DEPT: SB3
Defendants.
21 Action Filed: 12/11/2020
Trial Date: None Set
22 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
23
24 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25 Pursuant to California Evidence Code §452(d) and §453, and California Rules of Court, Rule
26 3.1113(1), Defendant HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC. (hereinafter
27 "HONOR") hereby requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of the following documents, in
28 connection with HONOR'S Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiffs Third Amended Summons and
31880655.1:10936-0027 -1-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
Third Amended Complaint which is set to be heard on May 1, 2024, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in
Department "SB3"of the above-entitled court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara,
California 93101.
California Evidence Code §453 provides that "[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of
any matter specified in California Evidence Code §452 if a party requests it and:
(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or
otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and
(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the
matter."
10 Pursuant to California Evidence Code §452(d), Defendants requests that the Court take
11 judicial notice of the following documents:
og
as
BET
Bee
N58 12 1 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, filed on or about on January 23, 2023, which is
ERS
S88
Be 13 on file with this Court.
Boge
zoue
SE <8 14 2 Plaintiffs' Second Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious / Incorrect Name) filed on or
sews
es zz
5508
2925
gue 15 about on May 26, 2023, which is on file with this Court.
$28
558
Pow
ole 16 3. Plaintiffs' Request for Dismissal of all claims and causes of action against Honor,
Bad
Roz
o4
Za
Ze 17 filed on or about on July 11, 2023, which is on file with this Court.
18 4 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint filed on or about on January 12, 2024, which
19 is on file with this Court.
20 5. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Summons filed on or about on February 16, 2024, which
21 is on file with this Court.
22 6. Plaintiffs' Proof of Service of Summons filed on or about on March 19, 2024, which
23 is on file with this Court.
24 This Court may take judicial notice of the foregoing pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(c)
25 and (h). Pursuant to section 452(c), judicial notice may be taken of the "[oJfficial acts of the
26 legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United
27 States." Pursuant to section 452(h), judicial notice may be taken of "[fJacts and propositions that
28 are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by
31880655.1:10936-0027 -2-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy." The aforementioned documents are a record
of this Court. As such, the existence and authenticity of these documents are not reasonably subject
to dispute and is capable of determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 453, the Court shall take judicial notice of any matter
specified in section 452 if a party requests it, gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the
request, and furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the
matter.
Based on the foregoing, HONOR respectfully requests that this Court GRANT their request
for judicial notice.
10
11 DATED: March 22, 2024 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
og
as
BET
Bee
N58 12
ERS
S88
Be 13
Boge
zoue
By:
SE <8
ws 14 ‘Al YN. VI OR
se
es zz ASHTON L. McKINNON
5508
2925
gue 15 KEVIN I. KILROY
$28
558
Pow Attorneys for Defendant HONOR HOME CARE
ole 16
Bad
Roz SERVICES CALIFORNIA. INC.
o4
Za
Ze 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31880655.1:10936-0027 -3-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1/23/2023 3:47 PM
By: Sarah Sisto , Deputy
David J. Tay einer (SBN 243979)
DT LAW T
125 East Victoria, Suite 1
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-8323
Facsimil 805) 453-8055
Email: Cai eee
Attorneys for faintitfs, ellars, 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 DIVISION
10
MARK SELLARS, individually and as } Case No. 20CV04132
nt Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t
dated September 13, 2001 0, and REBECCA ) [Assi jigned for all Burposes to Hon.
12 RIN, Conservator of the Estate and ) ‘olleen K. Sterne]
Person of Rosemary Free Leahy,
3 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR:
14
vs. 1, ELDER ABUSE;
15 2. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE,
PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, 3. LEGAL MALPRACTICE;
16 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
COLES, a California corporation; EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
17 PATRICIA WOLLUM; SUSAN 5. NEGLIGENCE
REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a
18 California corporation; and DOES 1-10, TRIAL DATE SET:
inclusive, November 21, 2022
19
Defendants.
20
21
2
Plaintiffs Mark Sellars, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated
23
September 13, 2000 (“Mark”), and Rebecca Morin (“Becky”), Conservator of the Estate and
24
Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, by and through their attorneys, DT LAW PARTNERS, LLP.
25
submits this First Amended Complaint for Elder Abuse; Financial Elder Abuse; Legal Malpractice;
26
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligence against the defendants identified
27
above and Doe Defendants 1-10 (individually and collectively, “Defendants”), and in support
28
allege as follows: 1
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
I
INTRODUCTION
1 The matter currently before the Court may be one of the most egregious examples
ofa husband committing elder abuse against his incapacitated wife. In this case, Defendant Patrick
Leahy (“Mr. Leahy”) began abusing his wife, Rosemary Free Leahy (“Rosemary”), as soon ag
Rosemary started to lose her capacity in or around 2017. Since then, Mr. Leahy has steadfastly;
engaged in multiple acts of emotional, physical and financial abuse against his own wife, as
detailed below.
2. Equally shocking and disconcerting is the evidence that has been uncovered since
10 this case was commenced whereby the caregiving agency Help Unlimited, Inc., and the individual
MW caregivers employed thereby, Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, who were hired b:
12 Rosemary’s former conservator (Courtney DeSoto) to provide care for Rosemary, conspired with]
13 Mr. Leahy against Rosemary and Rosemary’s family, as detailed further below.
14 3 As if that is not enough, it has now been confirmed that attorney Channe Coles,
15 who represented to this Court that she was representing Rosemary in the Conservatorship}
16 proceeding, colluded and conspired with Mr. Leahy to oppose the establishment of d
uv Conservatorship for Rosemary, representing to this Court that she was advocating for Rosemary.
18 when the truth was that she was advocating for Mr. Leahy. Such malfeasance was discovered and
19 confirmed by Becky, Rosemary’s daughter and current Conservator of the Estate and Person of
20 Rosemary Free Leahy, after Becky was appointed as Rosemary’s Conservator on February 10.
21 2022.
22 4 Due to the abuse committed by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary, including but not]
23 limited to Mr. Leahy’s deliberate acts of isolating Rosemary from her family, Mark had no choice
24 but to seek a Conservatorship for Rosemary in 2018, titled: Jn Re: Conservatorship of the Estate
25 and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 18PR00576 (the
26 “Conservatorship Proceeding”).
27 5. When the Conservatorship Proceeding was commenced, Rosemary was diagnosed)
28 as having moderate dementia and severe memory loss. Sadly, even with the establishment of a
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
Conservatorship for Rosemary, she continued to be abused by her own husband and others.
Currently, Rosemary is recovering at a memory care facility from a broken hip she suffered while
under the supervision of the previous conservator. When finished with rehabilitation, she will not
return to her home due to the progression of her disease and the professional assistance that is
required for her daily care.
6. Tragically, no matter the outcome of this case, while money was taken from|
Rosemary and while she was also financially damaged in other ways, the most valuable of al
things were taken from her, which are time and relationships with her family members. The
tangible money damages can be recovered. The intangibles of time and relationship with family.
to which were stolen from Rosemary, can never be properly compensated. There is no way to get
"i those things back.
12 7. The primary perpetrator of the abuse against Rosemary is Mr. Leahy. However,
13 Ms. Coles is equally responsible as she and Mr. Leahy filed a meritless Objection to the Petition
Id for Conservatorship filed by Mark, even though it was clear that Rosemary was incapacitated and
15 needed a Conservatorship. The actions of Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles set things in motion, which
16 has resulted in Rosemary incurring over $400,000 in legal and other professional fees, which fees
v could have been avoided entirely but for the abuse committed by the Defendants named herein.
18 8. To provide Rosemary the care she requires in a safe and desirable memory care
19 facility, her Trustees have to sell her home because Mr. Leahy took, gave away, and gambled away!
20 all of Mrs. Leahy’s money and Rosemary’s income is insufficient to cover her costs of care and}
2 her increased mortgage payment which resulted from having to refinance Rosemary’s home to pat
22 all of the legal and other professional fees that were incurred as a direct and proximate result of|
23 the misconduct of the Defendants named herein.
24 Wt
25 Wit
26 WM
27 Wil
28
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
IL.
PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
9. Mark is Rosemary’s biological son and the current Trustee of the Rosemary Free
Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”). Most of Rosemary’s assets were
titled in the name of Rosemary’s Trust. As explained above, the only significant asset remaining]
is Rosemary’s home at 961 Randolph Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93111 (“Rosemary’s Home”).
10. On December !1, 2020, Mark initiated this elder abuse action against Mr. Leahy
pursuant to CCP §§411.10 and §15610.30 (the “Original Complaint”).
11. After the action was initiated, due to Rosemary’s limited resources and othe:
10 reasons, Becky volunteered to move in with Rosemary and to become Rosemary’s Conservator,
i being appointed as such by this Court on February 10, 2022.
12 12. After Becky was appointed as Rosemary’s Conservator, she discovered the extent
3 of the financial abuse committed by Mr. Leahy, including but not limited to Mr. Leahy using
4 Rosemary’s money to pay for legal and other expenses of his own daughter.
13. In addition, once Becky had access to the computer at Rosemary’s Home, shi eh
1
5
16 discovered email exchanges between Mr. Leahy and attorney Channe Coles, which confirm that
17 attorney Channe Coles was working for Mr. Leahy and not for Rosemary but against her,
18 committing elder abuse herself against Mrs. Leahy, as well as committing legal malpractice and
19 breaching her fiduciary duties to Rosemary.
20 14, As detailed further below, caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds,
21 employees of Help Unlimited, Inc., who were supposed to provide care for Rosemary, acted
22 negligently and willfully and against Rosemary’s interests.
23 15. This First Amended Complaint has become necessary in order to add Becky as a
24 Plaintiff, in her capacity as Rosemary’s Conservator, and to add defendants Channe Coles, the
25 Law Office of Channe G. Coles, Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, and Help Unlimited, Inc..
26 each of whom must be held accountable for their actions against Rosemary and her family.
27 16. As set forth in the Original Complaint, venue is proper pursuant to CCP §395, ag
28 the damages alleged were incurred within the Judicial boundaries of this Court and this Court is|
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
the proper venue for trial of this action. Moreover, the Conservatorship Proceeding is pending inj
this Court as is the Elder Abuse Restraining Order matter against Mr. Leahy that was commenced
by Rosemary’s former conservator, Courtney DeSoto, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No}
20CV04056 (the “Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter”) and the actions of the Defendants which
caused harm to Rosemary and her family all occurred here in Santa Barbara County.
17. Defendant Patrick Leahy is Rosemary’s spouse and, at all times mentioned herein,
was an individual residing in Santa Barbara County, California.
18. Defendant Channe Coles is a duly licensed attorney by the State Bar of California
practicing in Santa Barbara County, State Bar Number 261234.
10 19. Defendant The Law Office of Channe G. Coles is a California corporation doing
u business in Santa Barbara at 19 East Mission Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
12 20. Defendant Help Unlimited, Inc. (“Help Unlimited”), is the caregiving agency that
13 was engaged by Rosemary’s former conservator to provide caregiving services to Rosemary. Help
14 Unlimited, Inc., does business in Santa Barbara County at 319 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 102 Santa
15 Barbara, CA. 93101.
16 21. Defendant Patricia Wollum is or was employed by Help Unlimited and wag
17 supposed to provide caregiving services to Rosemary but instead colluded with Mr. Leahy to harm}
18 Rosemary. Plaintiffs are not aware of Ms. Wollum’s legal domicile but her abuse against]
19 Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County.
20 22. Defendant Susan Reynolds is or was employed by Help Unlimited and wag
2 supposed to provide caregiving services to Rosemary but instead colluded with Mr. Leahy to harm
22 Rosemary. Plaintiffs are not aware of Ms. Reynold’s legal domicile but her abuse agains
3B Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County.
24 23. Does | through 10, inclusive, are individuals, corporations, partnerships or other
25 entities whose identity and form are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said individuals.
26 corporations, partnerships or other entities under such fictitious names, pursuant to the provisiong
27 of Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint td
28 allege the true names and capacities of such individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entitieg
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
at such time as the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based|
thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously named individuals, corporations, partnerships or othe:
entities is liable and responsible in some manner for the claims, demands, losses, acts, and damages
alleged herein.
24. Plaintiffs believe and allege that the tortious acts and omissions of Defendants and
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 td
accomplish a particular result, and that Defendants and the fictitiously named individuals,
corporations, partnerships or other entities, and each of them, enabled, aided and abetted each other]
10 in accomplishing the acts and omissions alleged herein.
i Il.
12 RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13 25. Rosemary is a 91-year old woman. Unfortunately, her dementia is now so
I4 advanced that she has had to be moved from her home to a memory care facility.
15 26. After Mr. Leahy isolated Rosemary from all of her family beginning in 2017, Mark,
16 with the support of Becky and his sister Kris Trueblood, and Rosemary’s grandchildren (Jeffre:
17 and Amanda Sellars), had no choice but to commence the Conservatorship Proceeding in 2018 in
18 order to protect Rosemary from Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation and abuse of Rosemary.
19 27. As the facts have continued to be discovered in this case, it is now clear that Mr.
20 Leahy developed a scheme to isolate Rosemary from her family because he was trying to hide hig
a egregious acts of taking and using Rosemary’s assets for his own benefit and for the benefit of his
22 daughter, and others. It is clear that Mr. Leahy hoped that by keeping Rosemary isolated from her
23 family, he could cover up his actions. Unfortunately for Mr. Leahy, all of his actions have no
24 been uncovered as Becky has been able to conduct a thorough investigation after she was appointed
25 as Rosemary’s Conservator on February 10, 2022.
26 28. Before commencing the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary’s family members
27 named herein tried for over a year to visit and communicate with Rosemary. Their attempts werd
28 always thwarted by Mr. Leahy. When Rosemary's family decided that they had no choice but td
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
establish a Conservatorship for Rosemary, in an attempt to wrongfully and maliciously avoid the
appointment of a Conservator for Rosemary, Mr. Leahy engaged attorney Channe Coles to oppose
the Conservatorship.
29. Mr. Leahy and attorney Channe Coles conspired together to resist th¢
Conservatorship for Rosemary, filing a wholly meritless Verified Objection to Petition fo
Appointment of Conservator (the “Objection”) to Mark’s Petition for Appointment of Probate
Conservator filed by him on December 5, 2018.
30. The Objection was prepared by attorney Coles and Mr. Leahy. All of the
information provided in the Objection was provided by Mr. Leahy. In the Objection, Mr. Leahy,
10 through his attorney, Channe Coles, claimed the Conservatorship was unnecessary and that Mrs.
i Leahy was not incapacitated, falsely alleging that: (i) Rosemary was not suffering from
12 Alzheimer’s disease or dementia; (ii) Rosemary was receiving excellent medica! care; (iii
13 Rosemary had voluntarily chosen not to see or speak to any of her children or grandchildren fo:
ld over a year; and ( iv) Rosemary’s finances were protected. Outrageously, Mr. Leahy and Ms
1s Coles also asserted that Mark was attempting cause harm to his mother. The Objection was
16 completely specious. Every allegation made by Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles in the Objection has
W since been proved to be false.
18 31. In the Conservatorship Proceeding, this Court directed that Ms. Leahy be evaluated,
19 by Dr. Rebecca Goodman. Contrary to the meritless allegations about Rosemary’s capacity mad
20 by Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles, Dr. Goodman (who was appointed by the Court over the objection
2 of Ms. Coles) concluded that Rosemary suffered from moderate dementia, that her memory wag
22 severely impaired, that she was disoriented, and lacked awareness about recent major famil
23 dynamics and about her medical condition, concluding:
24
A physician would make a diagnosis of the cause of dementia based on this and
25 other medical data. 1 would say that her profile is classic of Alzheimer’s
disease.” Ms. Leahy lacks capacity to independently provide for her personal needs
26 for physical health, food, and shelter. This is due to her severe memory impairment.
She lacks the ability to track her medical treatments and appointments and reliably
27
arrange for transportation. She is substantially unable to manage her own finances.
28 She lacks awareness of what her medical needs are and what her finances are; and
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
However, with her severe memory impairment, she lacks the ability to recall and
track the behavior of major events in her personal history and about people who
might exploit her. This limits her ability to make good decisions about whom she
chooses to assist her.
32. Ultimately, neutral professional fiduciary Jacqueline Quinn was appointed by thig
Court as Rosemary’s Conservator. Although Rosemary had nominated Mark to be her Conservatoy
under her Advance Health Care Directive dated September 13, 2000, in an attempt to avoid
incurring further legal fees over who would serve as Rosemary’s Conservator, Mark agreed tg
have Ms. Quinn appointed instead.
33. Even though this Court appointed Ms. Quinn as Rosemary’s Conservator, this did
not stop Mr. Leahy from his continued abuse of Rosemary. Tragically, even the caregivers named
10
herein who were hired by Rosemary’s former conservator to provide care and protection for
u
Rosemary not only allowed Mr, Leahy to continue to abuse Rosemary but even assisted and
12
colluded with him in a manner that is difficult to believe but for the fact that their actions were
13
recorded and then confirmed by Mr. Leahy during his deposition.
4
34. This action is necessary, and the Original Complaint must be amended because not
15
only has Mr. Leahy abused Rosemary but so has Ms. Coles, who was supposed to Rosemary’g
16
counsel, and so have the actions of Rosemary’s own caregivers. Plaintiffs are compelled to file
17
this First Amended Complaint to add Becky as an additional Plaintiff and in order to include Ms.
18
Coles and her law firm, and Rosemary’s own caregivers and the agency employing such caregivers
19
as additional defendants.
20
Iv.
21
ROSEMARY’S BACKGROUND AND EVENTS LEADING TO INITIATION OF
22
A CONSERVATORSHIP FOR ROSEMARY
23
35. Rosemary was a lifelong medical professional. She received her degree from|
24
Columbia University, became the Director of Nurses at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and
25
eventually served as the Nursing Administrator of the USC-LAC medical center.
26
36. During this period of time, before Rosemary met Mr. Leahy, Rosemary raised he:
27
children as a single-mother and worked hard to build their home in Santa Barbara despite he:
28
commutes to Los Angeles for many years. 8
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
took care of her children,
37. During her life, through her hard work, Rosemary not only
she acquired assets and was financially secure.
her family over anything
38. Rosemary was smart, tough, and opinionated. She valued
else.
Agreement prepared in
39. Before marrying Mr. Leahy, Rosemary had a Premarital
e from Mr. Leahy. While
order to ensure that het 1 assets were protected in the case of a divorc
ary owned substantial a: ssets at the time of marriage,
including her home, Mr. Leahy had
Rosem
want Mr. Leahy to be in charge
virtually no assets. Rosemary repeatedly to Id Mark that she did not
planning documents, prohibiting Mr.
of any of her finances. She also made this clear in her estate
10 Leahy from acting as her trustee or agent.
before the marriage. In
ut 40. The Premarital Agreement was executed in 1999, shortly
her estate plannin; 1g documents wer
12 addition to the Premarital Agreement, Rosemary ensured that
under ¢ which
13 inorder. As such, Rosemary executed other planning documents in September 2000,
care directive and power of
4 Mark was named as the primary agent under Rosemary's health
2000."
15 attorney. These documents have been in place since September
ding and despite
16 Al.Remarkably, after Mark commenced the Conservatorship Procee
Rosemary’s obvious memory issues and general lack of capacity, Ms.
Coles prepared an affidavit,
17
which she hadj
18 attempting to revoke Ro: semary’s longstanding health care directive, under
agents. Such attempted revocation
19 nominated Mark and then his sisters (Kris and Becky) as her
e of the fact that attorney|
20 was invalid because Rosemary lacked capacity but is further evidenc
y to Rosemary’s interests.
21 Coles was doing the bidding of Mr. Leahy and working contrar
15 years before Mr.
2 42. Dr. Robert Byers had been Rosemary’s primary physician for
the fact that Rosemary neve
23 Leahy initiated his plan to isolate Rosemary from her family. Despite
to remove Rosemary from
24 expressed any dissatisfaction with Dr. Byers, Mr. Leahy also made sure
capacity.
25 Dr. Byers care once Dr. Byers began to express concern over Rosemary’s
26
y meet and consult with attorney Steve
27 ' Ithas since been discovered that Mr. Leahy arranged to have Rosemar Mr.
trust ‘and other related estate planning documents changed. Fortunately,
‘Wagner in order to try to have her
28 Leahy was unsuccessful. 9
IAL ELDER ABUSE;
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANC
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENT IONAL INFLIC TION OF EMOTI ONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
1 43. When Rosemary began experiencing cognitive decline, she sought assistance from)
her children and adult grandchildren regarding her condition. She knowingly did not seek
assistance from Mr. Leahy because she knew he could not be trusted.
44, Prior to the time Mark commenced the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary}
asked Mark to move into her home, to evaluate her situation and render assistance. It was clear to
Mark at that time that his mother was beginning to have memory issues and needed help, so Markt
agreed.
45. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home to assist her, he became more suspicious
regarding Rosemary’s circumstances when her prescriptions were cut off due to numerous missed
10 doctor’s appointments. Rosemary could not drive and was experiencing cognitive decline. She
iW had been relying on Mr. Leahy to assist her with maintaining appointments and for transportation,
12 Mr. Leahy clearly could not be relied upon. The last thing Mr. Leahy wanted was for Rosemary’s
13 physician to confirm that she lacked capacity.
14 46. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home, serious financial issues were uncovered,
15 including but not limited to the fact that the amount of money that was being spent on gambling}
16 was many times greater than Rosemary allocated towards gambling when she had capacity.
17 47. In 2017, Dr. Byers indicated that he believed that Rosemary may be suffering from}
18 early Alzheimer’s Disease and ordered further testing. Future appointments were scheduled for
19 Rosemary in order to have her further evaluated.
20 48. As soon as Mr. Leahy learned of Dr. Byers’ diagnosis and realized the uncovering}
21 of his financial wrongdoings were imminent, he panicked and isolated Rosemary from her family
22 and eliminated Dr. Byers.
23 49. Mr. Leahy exercised control over and unduly influenced Rosemary, his impaired}
24 wife, in ways that allowed him to socially and physically isolate her from her familiar network o
25 protection — email, Skype, phone calls and regular visits with her family.
26 50. Mark and other of Rosemary’s family attempted hundreds of contacts with
27 Rosemary that were unsuccessful due to Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation of Rosemary and his
28 attempts to unduly influence Rosemary to fear her family.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
51. All of the foregoing events compelled Mark to commence the Conservatorship
Proceeding.
52. Even though Mark was nominated as Rosemary’s agent and conservator (should
‘one be needed), Mark agreed to have a neutral professional fiduciary appointed as Rosemary’s
conservator in an effort to avoid a protracted and costly dispute in the Conservatorship Proceeding.
53. While Dr. Goodman’s evaluation and the work of the neutrals appointed in the
Conservatorship Proceeding revealed and confirmed that Rosemary was incapacitated, was
did
suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, was not receiving adequate medical care,
not know she was being isolated from her family and wanted to see them, was being financial:
10 exploited and that Mark was acting in her best interests, and that a $50,000 HELOC on Rosemary’s
VW home was used improperly by Mr. Leahy, and that Mr. Leahy falsified an automobile financing|
12 application and used Rosemary’s credit and income to purchase a new BMW vehicle costing ovey
13 $70,000 for Mr. Leahy’s sole benefit, Mr. Leahy continued his abuse of Rosemary, financially.
14 emotionally, and even physically at times. Unfortunately, even the appointment of a professional
iS conservator and the establishment of a Conservatorship over Rosemary were not enough to curtai
16 the deplorable actions of Mr. Leahy.
17 54. Examples of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary before and after a Conservator was
18 appointed for Rosemary include and are not limited to the following:
19 a. At the first supervised visit with Rosemary in March 2019, mediator Lol
20 Sorenson reported that Rosemary did not know she was not seeing her family and thereb;
2 confirmed Mr. Leahy’s isolation and abuse of Rosemary;
22 b. For the first family unsupervised visit in April 2019, Mr. Leahy was told by
23 the temporary conservator not to be present but was present and disrupted the visit.
24 c. Mr. Leahy kept the only working landline phone behind a locked home
25 office door.
26
of
27 2 These examples represent only some of things which were known when this action was commenced. Examples
additional abuse by Mr. Leahy which has since been uncovered is set forth below.
28
I
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
d. Mr. Leahy continually interfered with Rosemary’s ability to communicate
with family members (e.g., phones unplugged from phone-jacks, tampering with her cell phone.)
¢. 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
(e.g., 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 off
Mr. Leahy (Thanksgiving 2019).
10 h Throughout 2020, Mr. Leahy tampered with Rosemary’s communications
It to prevent contact with family. This included using the pandemic to limit phone and in person)
12 communications and visits.
3 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 b
15 Courtney DeSoto, Rosemary’s Conservator at the time. During this same time period, Mr. Leahy}
16 had a sign posted on Rosemary’s door that read “No Visitors Please! We are vulnerable and don’
M7 want to get the virus.” He used COVID as a pretense to prevent family contact between Rosemary,
18 and her family.
19 J Mr. Leahy paraded Rosemary to the Courthouse during the pandemic. He
20 had her stand next to him, as a prop, while he said: “[w]e object” to the fee request made by Mark]
21 in the Conservatorship Proceeding.
22 k. Mr. Leahy thereafter again exploited and abused Rosemary when he had
her read from a script that he provided to her during the remote October 15, 2020 hearing in the
24 Conservatorship Proceeding.
25 1 Later, on October 15, 2020, Mr. Leahy unduly interfered with Mark’s
26 attempt to visit Rosemary. This event, coupled with other nefarious actions taken by Mr. Leahy
27 caused Rosemary’s then-acting conservator, Courtney DeSoto, to have to seek a restraining order
28 against Mr. Leahy in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
1 55. Further evidence of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary has since been uncovered. The
list is long so only some of the more egregious actions undertaken by Mr. Leahy are described
below:
a. Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino repeatedly and used het
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/or cover gambling losses and then lied to this
Court's investigator, claiming that the money was lost through an “oil scam” that Rosemary
became involved with; however, the conservatorship investigation concluded more than half the
10 money was lost gambling;
i c. Mr. Leahy used Rosemary’s credit cards and/or other assets to pay for
12 expenses of 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
4 lied about it to Rosemary and others;
15 €. Mr. Leahy falsified a vehicle loan application and used Rosemary’s income
16 and credit in order to purchase a BMW costing almost $80,000, which Mr. Leahy has used almos'
7 exclusively for himself:
18 f. Mr. Leahy terminated Rosemary’s relationship with Dr. Byers and instead)
19 took her to a completely unqualified physician out of the area, in an effort to avoid or forestall a
20 finding that Rosemary was incapacitated;
21 & Mr, Leahy engaged attorney Chane Coles to object to the conservatorship
22 proceeding in order to avoid having a conservator appointed because he feared the conservator]
23 would uncover his financial and other abuses of Rosemary;
24 h. Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to others
25 repeatedly;
26 i Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to Rosemary
27 herself;
28 Wi
13
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND
NEGLIGENCE
J Mr. Leahy has enlisted and/or indoctrinated others, including Rosemary’
caregivers, in an attempt to cover his tracks and to try to make Mark and other family members
look bad before this Court;
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 full well that
Rosemary had made it abundantly clear that she wanted to be cared for her in her own home.
L Mr. Leahy has been emotionally abusing Rosemary ever since she became
10 incapacitated. Even after Becky moved into Rosemary’s Home and became her Conservator,
i Becky has witnessed Mr. Leahy violate this Court’s orders in the Elder Abuse Restraining]
12 Order Matter by: (i) discussing these ongoing legal proceeding directly with Rosemary and!
13 with Rosemary’s caregivers in front of Rosemary; (ii) disparaging all of Rosemary’s|
4 family, including Becky herself; and (iii) intimidating threatening, and harassing}
15 Rosemary.
16
m. Following are just a few examples of the emotional abuse by Mr. Leahy
17
against Rosemary which were captured on a recording:
18
Patrick Leahy:. “You told mu ‘ou told them in the living trust that {am not to handle anyof our
19
finances or any of your affairs if you have medical problems, Well guess what? You have moderate dementia; it has been
20
verified by the Court. You have a conservator because of that: the thing the court did. One thing they did for me is, they
21
also didn’t give the advanced medical directive, power of attorney to Mark to be the conservator. He wanted to be the
22
conservator, they turned it down, but since they can’t give him the conservatorship because you gave him the Goddamn
23
power of attorney."
24
Rosemary: “I did?”
25
26
> Mr. Leahy of course misrepresents the actual facts. As explained above, Rosemary nominated Mark as far back as
27 year 2000 to be her Conservator but, in an attempt to avoid incurring further legal fees seeking to be appointed
himself, Mark agreed to have Ms. Quinn appointed as a neutral Conservator.
28
4
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE;
LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California Marilyn R. Victor (State Bar No. 156230) County of Santa Barbara mvictor@wshblaw.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Ashton L. McKinnon (State Bar No. 310226) 3/22/2024 3:07 PM amckinnon@wshblaw.com By: Sarah Sisto , Deputy Kevin I. Kilroy (State Bar No. 350730) kkilroy@wshblaw.com WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215 Thousand Oaks, California 91361-5827, Phone: (820) 333-4250 Fax: (820) 333-4249 Attorneys for Defendant HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA. INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ANACAPA DIVISION 11 og as wey 2E8 N58 12 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee Case No. 20CV04132 58 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Thomas Anderle, S88 Be 13 September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, Dept. 3] qos8 Conservator of the Estate and Person of oa? BE uss 14 Rosemary Free Leahy, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN oe eS zz SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH 5508 2925 gue 15 Plaintiff, SERVICE OF THIRD AMENDED $28 658 SUMMONS AND THIRD AMENDED Kow Qye2 16 Vv. COMPLAINT Bad Roz o4 Za Ze 17 PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a and Motion to Quash Service of Summons 18 California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM; and Complaint; [Proposed] Orde] | SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a 19 California corporation; and DOES 1-10, DATE: May 1, 2024 inclusive, TIME: 10:00 a.m. 20 DEPT: SB3 Defendants. 21 Action Filed: 12/11/2020 Trial Date: None Set 22 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 23 24 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 Pursuant to California Evidence Code §452(d) and §453, and California Rules of Court, Rule 26 3.1113(1), Defendant HONOR HOME CARE SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC. (hereinafter 27 "HONOR") hereby requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of the following documents, in 28 connection with HONOR'S Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiffs Third Amended Summons and 31880655.1:10936-0027 -1- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Third Amended Complaint which is set to be heard on May 1, 2024, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department "SB3"of the above-entitled court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101. California Evidence Code §453 provides that "[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in California Evidence Code §452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter." 10 Pursuant to California Evidence Code §452(d), Defendants requests that the Court take 11 judicial notice of the following documents: og as BET Bee N58 12 1 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, filed on or about on January 23, 2023, which is ERS S88 Be 13 on file with this Court. Boge zoue SE <8 14 2 Plaintiffs' Second Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious / Incorrect Name) filed on or sews es zz 5508 2925 gue 15 about on May 26, 2023, which is on file with this Court. $28 558 Pow ole 16 3. Plaintiffs' Request for Dismissal of all claims and causes of action against Honor, Bad Roz o4 Za Ze 17 filed on or about on July 11, 2023, which is on file with this Court. 18 4 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint filed on or about on January 12, 2024, which 19 is on file with this Court. 20 5. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Summons filed on or about on February 16, 2024, which 21 is on file with this Court. 22 6. Plaintiffs' Proof of Service of Summons filed on or about on March 19, 2024, which 23 is on file with this Court. 24 This Court may take judicial notice of the foregoing pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(c) 25 and (h). Pursuant to section 452(c), judicial notice may be taken of the "[oJfficial acts of the 26 legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United 27 States." Pursuant to section 452(h), judicial notice may be taken of "[fJacts and propositions that 28 are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by 31880655.1:10936-0027 -2- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy." The aforementioned documents are a record of this Court. As such, the existence and authenticity of these documents are not reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 453, the Court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in section 452 if a party requests it, gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, and furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. Based on the foregoing, HONOR respectfully requests that this Court GRANT their request for judicial notice. 10 11 DATED: March 22, 2024 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP og as BET Bee N58 12 ERS S88 Be 13 Boge zoue By: SE <8 ws 14 ‘Al YN. VI OR se es zz ASHTON L. McKINNON 5508 2925 gue 15 KEVIN I. KILROY $28 558 Pow Attorneys for Defendant HONOR HOME CARE ole 16 Bad Roz SERVICES CALIFORNIA. INC. o4 Za Ze 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31880655.1:10936-0027 -3- REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1/23/2023 3:47 PM By: Sarah Sisto , Deputy David J. Tay einer (SBN 243979) DT LAW T 125 East Victoria, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-8323 Facsimil 805) 453-8055 Email: Cai eee Attorneys for faintitfs, ellars, 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 DIVISION 10 MARK SELLARS, individually and as } Case No. 20CV04132 nt Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2001 0, and REBECCA ) [Assi jigned for all Burposes to Hon. 12 RIN, Conservator of the Estate and ) ‘olleen K. Sterne] Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, 3 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR: 14 vs. 1, ELDER ABUSE; 15 2. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE, PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, 3. LEGAL MALPRACTICE; 16 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF COLES, a California corporation; EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND 17 PATRICIA WOLLUM; SUSAN 5. NEGLIGENCE REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a 18 California corporation; and DOES 1-10, TRIAL DATE SET: inclusive, November 21, 2022 19 Defendants. 20 21 2 Plaintiffs Mark Sellars, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated 23 September 13, 2000 (“Mark”), and Rebecca Morin (“Becky”), Conservator of the Estate and 24 Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, by and through their attorneys, DT LAW PARTNERS, LLP. 25 submits this First Amended Complaint for Elder Abuse; Financial Elder Abuse; Legal Malpractice; 26 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligence against the defendants identified 27 above and Doe Defendants 1-10 (individually and collectively, “Defendants”), and in support 28 allege as follows: 1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE I INTRODUCTION 1 The matter currently before the Court may be one of the most egregious examples ofa husband committing elder abuse against his incapacitated wife. In this case, Defendant Patrick Leahy (“Mr. Leahy”) began abusing his wife, Rosemary Free Leahy (“Rosemary”), as soon ag Rosemary started to lose her capacity in or around 2017. Since then, Mr. Leahy has steadfastly; engaged in multiple acts of emotional, physical and financial abuse against his own wife, as detailed below. 2. Equally shocking and disconcerting is the evidence that has been uncovered since 10 this case was commenced whereby the caregiving agency Help Unlimited, Inc., and the individual MW caregivers employed thereby, Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, who were hired b: 12 Rosemary’s former conservator (Courtney DeSoto) to provide care for Rosemary, conspired with] 13 Mr. Leahy against Rosemary and Rosemary’s family, as detailed further below. 14 3 As if that is not enough, it has now been confirmed that attorney Channe Coles, 15 who represented to this Court that she was representing Rosemary in the Conservatorship} 16 proceeding, colluded and conspired with Mr. Leahy to oppose the establishment of d uv Conservatorship for Rosemary, representing to this Court that she was advocating for Rosemary. 18 when the truth was that she was advocating for Mr. Leahy. Such malfeasance was discovered and 19 confirmed by Becky, Rosemary’s daughter and current Conservator of the Estate and Person of 20 Rosemary Free Leahy, after Becky was appointed as Rosemary’s Conservator on February 10. 21 2022. 22 4 Due to the abuse committed by Mr. Leahy against Rosemary, including but not] 23 limited to Mr. Leahy’s deliberate acts of isolating Rosemary from her family, Mark had no choice 24 but to seek a Conservatorship for Rosemary in 2018, titled: Jn Re: Conservatorship of the Estate 25 and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 18PR00576 (the 26 “Conservatorship Proceeding”). 27 5. When the Conservatorship Proceeding was commenced, Rosemary was diagnosed) 28 as having moderate dementia and severe memory loss. Sadly, even with the establishment of a PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE Conservatorship for Rosemary, she continued to be abused by her own husband and others. Currently, Rosemary is recovering at a memory care facility from a broken hip she suffered while under the supervision of the previous conservator. When finished with rehabilitation, she will not return to her home due to the progression of her disease and the professional assistance that is required for her daily care. 6. Tragically, no matter the outcome of this case, while money was taken from| Rosemary and while she was also financially damaged in other ways, the most valuable of al things were taken from her, which are time and relationships with her family members. The tangible money damages can be recovered. The intangibles of time and relationship with family. to which were stolen from Rosemary, can never be properly compensated. There is no way to get "i those things back. 12 7. The primary perpetrator of the abuse against Rosemary is Mr. Leahy. However, 13 Ms. Coles is equally responsible as she and Mr. Leahy filed a meritless Objection to the Petition Id for Conservatorship filed by Mark, even though it was clear that Rosemary was incapacitated and 15 needed a Conservatorship. The actions of Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles set things in motion, which 16 has resulted in Rosemary incurring over $400,000 in legal and other professional fees, which fees v could have been avoided entirely but for the abuse committed by the Defendants named herein. 18 8. To provide Rosemary the care she requires in a safe and desirable memory care 19 facility, her Trustees have to sell her home because Mr. Leahy took, gave away, and gambled away! 20 all of Mrs. Leahy’s money and Rosemary’s income is insufficient to cover her costs of care and} 2 her increased mortgage payment which resulted from having to refinance Rosemary’s home to pat 22 all of the legal and other professional fees that were incurred as a direct and proximate result of| 23 the misconduct of the Defendants named herein. 24 Wt 25 Wit 26 WM 27 Wil 28 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE IL. PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9. Mark is Rosemary’s biological son and the current Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000 (“Rosemary’s Trust”). Most of Rosemary’s assets were titled in the name of Rosemary’s Trust. As explained above, the only significant asset remaining] is Rosemary’s home at 961 Randolph Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93111 (“Rosemary’s Home”). 10. On December !1, 2020, Mark initiated this elder abuse action against Mr. Leahy pursuant to CCP §§411.10 and §15610.30 (the “Original Complaint”). 11. After the action was initiated, due to Rosemary’s limited resources and othe: 10 reasons, Becky volunteered to move in with Rosemary and to become Rosemary’s Conservator, i being appointed as such by this Court on February 10, 2022. 12 12. After Becky was appointed as Rosemary’s Conservator, she discovered the extent 3 of the financial abuse committed by Mr. Leahy, including but not limited to Mr. Leahy using 4 Rosemary’s money to pay for legal and other expenses of his own daughter. 13. In addition, once Becky had access to the computer at Rosemary’s Home, shi eh 1 5 16 discovered email exchanges between Mr. Leahy and attorney Channe Coles, which confirm that 17 attorney Channe Coles was working for Mr. Leahy and not for Rosemary but against her, 18 committing elder abuse herself against Mrs. Leahy, as well as committing legal malpractice and 19 breaching her fiduciary duties to Rosemary. 20 14, As detailed further below, caregivers Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, 21 employees of Help Unlimited, Inc., who were supposed to provide care for Rosemary, acted 22 negligently and willfully and against Rosemary’s interests. 23 15. This First Amended Complaint has become necessary in order to add Becky as a 24 Plaintiff, in her capacity as Rosemary’s Conservator, and to add defendants Channe Coles, the 25 Law Office of Channe G. Coles, Patricia Wollum and Susan Reynolds, and Help Unlimited, Inc.. 26 each of whom must be held accountable for their actions against Rosemary and her family. 27 16. As set forth in the Original Complaint, venue is proper pursuant to CCP §395, ag 28 the damages alleged were incurred within the Judicial boundaries of this Court and this Court is| PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE the proper venue for trial of this action. Moreover, the Conservatorship Proceeding is pending inj this Court as is the Elder Abuse Restraining Order matter against Mr. Leahy that was commenced by Rosemary’s former conservator, Courtney DeSoto, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No} 20CV04056 (the “Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter”) and the actions of the Defendants which caused harm to Rosemary and her family all occurred here in Santa Barbara County. 17. Defendant Patrick Leahy is Rosemary’s spouse and, at all times mentioned herein, was an individual residing in Santa Barbara County, California. 18. Defendant Channe Coles is a duly licensed attorney by the State Bar of California practicing in Santa Barbara County, State Bar Number 261234. 10 19. Defendant The Law Office of Channe G. Coles is a California corporation doing u business in Santa Barbara at 19 East Mission Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. 12 20. Defendant Help Unlimited, Inc. (“Help Unlimited”), is the caregiving agency that 13 was engaged by Rosemary’s former conservator to provide caregiving services to Rosemary. Help 14 Unlimited, Inc., does business in Santa Barbara County at 319 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 102 Santa 15 Barbara, CA. 93101. 16 21. Defendant Patricia Wollum is or was employed by Help Unlimited and wag 17 supposed to provide caregiving services to Rosemary but instead colluded with Mr. Leahy to harm} 18 Rosemary. Plaintiffs are not aware of Ms. Wollum’s legal domicile but her abuse against] 19 Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County. 20 22. Defendant Susan Reynolds is or was employed by Help Unlimited and wag 2 supposed to provide caregiving services to Rosemary but instead colluded with Mr. Leahy to harm 22 Rosemary. Plaintiffs are not aware of Ms. Reynold’s legal domicile but her abuse agains 3B Rosemary occurred here in Santa Barbara County. 24 23. Does | through 10, inclusive, are individuals, corporations, partnerships or other 25 entities whose identity and form are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said individuals. 26 corporations, partnerships or other entities under such fictitious names, pursuant to the provisiong 27 of Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint td 28 allege the true names and capacities of such individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entitieg PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE at such time as the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based| thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously named individuals, corporations, partnerships or othe: entities is liable and responsible in some manner for the claims, demands, losses, acts, and damages alleged herein. 24. Plaintiffs believe and allege that the tortious acts and omissions of Defendants and 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 td accomplish a particular result, and that Defendants and the fictitiously named individuals, corporations, partnerships or other entities, and each of them, enabled, aided and abetted each other] 10 in accomplishing the acts and omissions alleged herein. i Il. 12 RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13 25. Rosemary is a 91-year old woman. Unfortunately, her dementia is now so I4 advanced that she has had to be moved from her home to a memory care facility. 15 26. After Mr. Leahy isolated Rosemary from all of her family beginning in 2017, Mark, 16 with the support of Becky and his sister Kris Trueblood, and Rosemary’s grandchildren (Jeffre: 17 and Amanda Sellars), had no choice but to commence the Conservatorship Proceeding in 2018 in 18 order to protect Rosemary from Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation and abuse of Rosemary. 19 27. As the facts have continued to be discovered in this case, it is now clear that Mr. 20 Leahy developed a scheme to isolate Rosemary from her family because he was trying to hide hig a egregious acts of taking and using Rosemary’s assets for his own benefit and for the benefit of his 22 daughter, and others. It is clear that Mr. Leahy hoped that by keeping Rosemary isolated from her 23 family, he could cover up his actions. Unfortunately for Mr. Leahy, all of his actions have no 24 been uncovered as Becky has been able to conduct a thorough investigation after she was appointed 25 as Rosemary’s Conservator on February 10, 2022. 26 28. Before commencing the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary’s family members 27 named herein tried for over a year to visit and communicate with Rosemary. Their attempts werd 28 always thwarted by Mr. Leahy. When Rosemary's family decided that they had no choice but td PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE establish a Conservatorship for Rosemary, in an attempt to wrongfully and maliciously avoid the appointment of a Conservator for Rosemary, Mr. Leahy engaged attorney Channe Coles to oppose the Conservatorship. 29. Mr. Leahy and attorney Channe Coles conspired together to resist th¢ Conservatorship for Rosemary, filing a wholly meritless Verified Objection to Petition fo Appointment of Conservator (the “Objection”) to Mark’s Petition for Appointment of Probate Conservator filed by him on December 5, 2018. 30. The Objection was prepared by attorney Coles and Mr. Leahy. All of the information provided in the Objection was provided by Mr. Leahy. In the Objection, Mr. Leahy, 10 through his attorney, Channe Coles, claimed the Conservatorship was unnecessary and that Mrs. i Leahy was not incapacitated, falsely alleging that: (i) Rosemary was not suffering from 12 Alzheimer’s disease or dementia; (ii) Rosemary was receiving excellent medica! care; (iii 13 Rosemary had voluntarily chosen not to see or speak to any of her children or grandchildren fo: ld over a year; and ( iv) Rosemary’s finances were protected. Outrageously, Mr. Leahy and Ms 1s Coles also asserted that Mark was attempting cause harm to his mother. The Objection was 16 completely specious. Every allegation made by Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles in the Objection has W since been proved to be false. 18 31. In the Conservatorship Proceeding, this Court directed that Ms. Leahy be evaluated, 19 by Dr. Rebecca Goodman. Contrary to the meritless allegations about Rosemary’s capacity mad 20 by Mr. Leahy and Ms. Coles, Dr. Goodman (who was appointed by the Court over the objection 2 of Ms. Coles) concluded that Rosemary suffered from moderate dementia, that her memory wag 22 severely impaired, that she was disoriented, and lacked awareness about recent major famil 23 dynamics and about her medical condition, concluding: 24 A physician would make a diagnosis of the cause of dementia based on this and 25 other medical data. 1 would say that her profile is classic of Alzheimer’s disease.” Ms. Leahy lacks capacity to independently provide for her personal needs 26 for physical health, food, and shelter. This is due to her severe memory impairment. She lacks the ability to track her medical treatments and appointments and reliably 27 arrange for transportation. She is substantially unable to manage her own finances. 28 She lacks awareness of what her medical needs are and what her finances are; and PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE However, with her severe memory impairment, she lacks the ability to recall and track the behavior of major events in her personal history and about people who might exploit her. This limits her ability to make good decisions about whom she chooses to assist her. 32. Ultimately, neutral professional fiduciary Jacqueline Quinn was appointed by thig Court as Rosemary’s Conservator. Although Rosemary had nominated Mark to be her Conservatoy under her Advance Health Care Directive dated September 13, 2000, in an attempt to avoid incurring further legal fees over who would serve as Rosemary’s Conservator, Mark agreed tg have Ms. Quinn appointed instead. 33. Even though this Court appointed Ms. Quinn as Rosemary’s Conservator, this did not stop Mr. Leahy from his continued abuse of Rosemary. Tragically, even the caregivers named 10 herein who were hired by Rosemary’s former conservator to provide care and protection for u Rosemary not only allowed Mr, Leahy to continue to abuse Rosemary but even assisted and 12 colluded with him in a manner that is difficult to believe but for the fact that their actions were 13 recorded and then confirmed by Mr. Leahy during his deposition. 4 34. This action is necessary, and the Original Complaint must be amended because not 15 only has Mr. Leahy abused Rosemary but so has Ms. Coles, who was supposed to Rosemary’g 16 counsel, and so have the actions of Rosemary’s own caregivers. Plaintiffs are compelled to file 17 this First Amended Complaint to add Becky as an additional Plaintiff and in order to include Ms. 18 Coles and her law firm, and Rosemary’s own caregivers and the agency employing such caregivers 19 as additional defendants. 20 Iv. 21 ROSEMARY’S BACKGROUND AND EVENTS LEADING TO INITIATION OF 22 A CONSERVATORSHIP FOR ROSEMARY 23 35. Rosemary was a lifelong medical professional. She received her degree from| 24 Columbia University, became the Director of Nurses at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and 25 eventually served as the Nursing Administrator of the USC-LAC medical center. 26 36. During this period of time, before Rosemary met Mr. Leahy, Rosemary raised he: 27 children as a single-mother and worked hard to build their home in Santa Barbara despite he: 28 commutes to Los Angeles for many years. 8 PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE took care of her children, 37. During her life, through her hard work, Rosemary not only she acquired assets and was financially secure. her family over anything 38. Rosemary was smart, tough, and opinionated. She valued else. Agreement prepared in 39. Before marrying Mr. Leahy, Rosemary had a Premarital e from Mr. Leahy. While order to ensure that het 1 assets were protected in the case of a divorc ary owned substantial a: ssets at the time of marriage, including her home, Mr. Leahy had Rosem want Mr. Leahy to be in charge virtually no assets. Rosemary repeatedly to Id Mark that she did not planning documents, prohibiting Mr. of any of her finances. She also made this clear in her estate 10 Leahy from acting as her trustee or agent. before the marriage. In ut 40. The Premarital Agreement was executed in 1999, shortly her estate plannin; 1g documents wer 12 addition to the Premarital Agreement, Rosemary ensured that under ¢ which 13 inorder. As such, Rosemary executed other planning documents in September 2000, care directive and power of 4 Mark was named as the primary agent under Rosemary's health 2000." 15 attorney. These documents have been in place since September ding and despite 16 Al.Remarkably, after Mark commenced the Conservatorship Procee Rosemary’s obvious memory issues and general lack of capacity, Ms. Coles prepared an affidavit, 17 which she hadj 18 attempting to revoke Ro: semary’s longstanding health care directive, under agents. Such attempted revocation 19 nominated Mark and then his sisters (Kris and Becky) as her e of the fact that attorney| 20 was invalid because Rosemary lacked capacity but is further evidenc y to Rosemary’s interests. 21 Coles was doing the bidding of Mr. Leahy and working contrar 15 years before Mr. 2 42. Dr. Robert Byers had been Rosemary’s primary physician for the fact that Rosemary neve 23 Leahy initiated his plan to isolate Rosemary from her family. Despite to remove Rosemary from 24 expressed any dissatisfaction with Dr. Byers, Mr. Leahy also made sure capacity. 25 Dr. Byers care once Dr. Byers began to express concern over Rosemary’s 26 y meet and consult with attorney Steve 27 ' Ithas since been discovered that Mr. Leahy arranged to have Rosemar Mr. trust ‘and other related estate planning documents changed. Fortunately, ‘Wagner in order to try to have her 28 Leahy was unsuccessful. 9 IAL ELDER ABUSE; PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANC LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENT IONAL INFLIC TION OF EMOTI ONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE 1 43. When Rosemary began experiencing cognitive decline, she sought assistance from) her children and adult grandchildren regarding her condition. She knowingly did not seek assistance from Mr. Leahy because she knew he could not be trusted. 44, Prior to the time Mark commenced the Conservatorship Proceeding, Rosemary} asked Mark to move into her home, to evaluate her situation and render assistance. It was clear to Mark at that time that his mother was beginning to have memory issues and needed help, so Markt agreed. 45. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home to assist her, he became more suspicious regarding Rosemary’s circumstances when her prescriptions were cut off due to numerous missed 10 doctor’s appointments. Rosemary could not drive and was experiencing cognitive decline. She iW had been relying on Mr. Leahy to assist her with maintaining appointments and for transportation, 12 Mr. Leahy clearly could not be relied upon. The last thing Mr. Leahy wanted was for Rosemary’s 13 physician to confirm that she lacked capacity. 14 46. After Mark moved into Rosemary’s home, serious financial issues were uncovered, 15 including but not limited to the fact that the amount of money that was being spent on gambling} 16 was many times greater than Rosemary allocated towards gambling when she had capacity. 17 47. In 2017, Dr. Byers indicated that he believed that Rosemary may be suffering from} 18 early Alzheimer’s Disease and ordered further testing. Future appointments were scheduled for 19 Rosemary in order to have her further evaluated. 20 48. As soon as Mr. Leahy learned of Dr. Byers’ diagnosis and realized the uncovering} 21 of his financial wrongdoings were imminent, he panicked and isolated Rosemary from her family 22 and eliminated Dr. Byers. 23 49. Mr. Leahy exercised control over and unduly influenced Rosemary, his impaired} 24 wife, in ways that allowed him to socially and physically isolate her from her familiar network o 25 protection — email, Skype, phone calls and regular visits with her family. 26 50. Mark and other of Rosemary’s family attempted hundreds of contacts with 27 Rosemary that were unsuccessful due to Mr. Leahy’s continued isolation of Rosemary and his 28 attempts to unduly influence Rosemary to fear her family. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE 51. All of the foregoing events compelled Mark to commence the Conservatorship Proceeding. 52. Even though Mark was nominated as Rosemary’s agent and conservator (should ‘one be needed), Mark agreed to have a neutral professional fiduciary appointed as Rosemary’s conservator in an effort to avoid a protracted and costly dispute in the Conservatorship Proceeding. 53. While Dr. Goodman’s evaluation and the work of the neutrals appointed in the Conservatorship Proceeding revealed and confirmed that Rosemary was incapacitated, was did suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, was not receiving adequate medical care, not know she was being isolated from her family and wanted to see them, was being financial: 10 exploited and that Mark was acting in her best interests, and that a $50,000 HELOC on Rosemary’s VW home was used improperly by Mr. Leahy, and that Mr. Leahy falsified an automobile financing| 12 application and used Rosemary’s credit and income to purchase a new BMW vehicle costing ovey 13 $70,000 for Mr. Leahy’s sole benefit, Mr. Leahy continued his abuse of Rosemary, financially. 14 emotionally, and even physically at times. Unfortunately, even the appointment of a professional iS conservator and the establishment of a Conservatorship over Rosemary were not enough to curtai 16 the deplorable actions of Mr. Leahy. 17 54. Examples of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary before and after a Conservator was 18 appointed for Rosemary include and are not limited to the following: 19 a. At the first supervised visit with Rosemary in March 2019, mediator Lol 20 Sorenson reported that Rosemary did not know she was not seeing her family and thereb; 2 confirmed Mr. Leahy’s isolation and abuse of Rosemary; 22 b. For the first family unsupervised visit in April 2019, Mr. Leahy was told by 23 the temporary conservator not to be present but was present and disrupted the visit. 24 c. Mr. Leahy kept the only working landline phone behind a locked home 25 office door. 26 of 27 2 These examples represent only some of things which were known when this action was commenced. Examples additional abuse by Mr. Leahy which has since been uncovered is set forth below. 28 I PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE d. Mr. Leahy continually interfered with Rosemary’s ability to communicate with family members (e.g., phones unplugged from phone-jacks, tampering with her cell phone.) ¢. 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 (e.g., 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 off Mr. Leahy (Thanksgiving 2019). 10 h Throughout 2020, Mr. Leahy tampered with Rosemary’s communications It to prevent contact with family. This included using the pandemic to limit phone and in person) 12 communications and visits. 3 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 b 15 Courtney DeSoto, Rosemary’s Conservator at the time. During this same time period, Mr. Leahy} 16 had a sign posted on Rosemary’s door that read “No Visitors Please! We are vulnerable and don’ M7 want to get the virus.” He used COVID as a pretense to prevent family contact between Rosemary, 18 and her family. 19 J Mr. Leahy paraded Rosemary to the Courthouse during the pandemic. He 20 had her stand next to him, as a prop, while he said: “[w]e object” to the fee request made by Mark] 21 in the Conservatorship Proceeding. 22 k. Mr. Leahy thereafter again exploited and abused Rosemary when he had her read from a script that he provided to her during the remote October 15, 2020 hearing in the 24 Conservatorship Proceeding. 25 1 Later, on October 15, 2020, Mr. Leahy unduly interfered with Mark’s 26 attempt to visit Rosemary. This event, coupled with other nefarious actions taken by Mr. Leahy 27 caused Rosemary’s then-acting conservator, Courtney DeSoto, to have to seek a restraining order 28 against Mr. Leahy in the Elder Abuse Restraining Order Matter. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE 1 55. Further evidence of Mr. Leahy’s abuse of Rosemary has since been uncovered. The list is long so only some of the more egregious actions undertaken by Mr. Leahy are described below: a. Mr. Leahy took Rosemary to the Chumash Casino repeatedly and used het 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/or cover gambling losses and then lied to this Court's investigator, claiming that the money was lost through an “oil scam” that Rosemary became involved with; however, the conservatorship investigation concluded more than half the 10 money was lost gambling; i c. Mr. Leahy used Rosemary’s credit cards and/or other assets to pay for 12 expenses of 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 4 lied about it to Rosemary and others; 15 €. Mr. Leahy falsified a vehicle loan application and used Rosemary’s income 16 and credit in order to purchase a BMW costing almost $80,000, which Mr. Leahy has used almos' 7 exclusively for himself: 18 f. Mr. Leahy terminated Rosemary’s relationship with Dr. Byers and instead) 19 took her to a completely unqualified physician out of the area, in an effort to avoid or forestall a 20 finding that Rosemary was incapacitated; 21 & Mr, Leahy engaged attorney Chane Coles to object to the conservatorship 22 proceeding in order to avoid having a conservator appointed because he feared the conservator] 23 would uncover his financial and other abuses of Rosemary; 24 h. Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to others 25 repeatedly; 26 i Mr. Leahy has disparaged and maligned Rosemary’s family to Rosemary 27 herself; 28 Wi 13 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AND NEGLIGENCE J Mr. Leahy has enlisted and/or indoctrinated others, including Rosemary’ caregivers, in an attempt to cover his tracks and to try to make Mark and other family members look bad before this Court; 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 full well that Rosemary had made it abundantly clear that she wanted to be cared for her in her own home. L Mr. Leahy has been emotionally abusing Rosemary ever since she became 10 incapacitated. Even after Becky moved into Rosemary’s Home and became her Conservator, i Becky has witnessed Mr. Leahy violate this Court’s orders in the Elder Abuse Restraining] 12 Order Matter by: (i) discussing these ongoing legal proceeding directly with Rosemary and! 13 with Rosemary’s caregivers in front of Rosemary; (ii) disparaging all of Rosemary’s| 4 family, including Becky herself; and (iii) intimidating threatening, and harassing} 15 Rosemary. 16 m. Following are just a few examples of the emotional abuse by Mr. Leahy 17 against Rosemary which were captured on a recording: 18 Patrick Leahy:. “You told mu ‘ou told them in the living trust that {am not to handle anyof our 19 finances or any of your affairs if you have medical problems, Well guess what? You have moderate dementia; it has been 20 verified by the Court. You have a conservator because of that: the thing the court did. One thing they did for me is, they 21 also didn’t give the advanced medical directive, power of attorney to Mark to be the conservator. He wanted to be the 22 conservator, they turned it down, but since they can’t give him the conservatorship because you gave him the Goddamn 23 power of attorney." 24 Rosemary: “I did?” 25 26 > Mr. Leahy of course misrepresents the actual facts. As explained above, Rosemary nominated Mark as far back as 27 year 2000 to be her Conservator but, in an attempt to avoid incurring further legal fees seeking to be appointed himself, Mark agreed to have Ms. Quinn appointed as a neutral Conservator. 28 4 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ELDER ABUSE; FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LEGAL MALPRACTICE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF