HTML Document View

Full title: Opposition to (related document(s): 170 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C. 362(c)(4)(A)(ii) Breach of Contract . Fee Amount $188, filed by Creditor Bedford Law Group, APC) - Opposition to Bedford Law Group, APC's Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (Action in Nonbankruptcy Forum) with Proof of Service Filed by Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) (Evanston, Timothy) (Entered: 02/23/2021)

Document posted on Feb 22, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 15 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

THE HONORABLE BARRY RUSSELL, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: 2 Elissa D. Miller, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") for the bankruptcy estate 3 (the "Estate") of Girardi Keese (the "Debtor"), submits the opposition (the "Opposition") t 4 Bedford Law Group, APC's ("Bedford")The State Court Action C 1 7 el   T 17 Bedford alleges that it filed a lawsuit on August 31, 2020 in the Los Angeles 18 Superior Court as case number 20STCV33498 (the "State Court Action") against Thoma19 V. Girardi, "Girardi Keese Lawyers," and eleven other defendants.2 On or about Octobe20 21, 2020, Shawn Azizzadeh and Bedford filed their First Amended Complaint (the 21 "Complaint"). 21 Bedford's claims that the Estate will not be burdened because defense expenses 22 for both Mr. Girardi and the Debtor "are likely one in the same" and that "Mr. Girardi, the 23 individual, would be incurring defense costs…" are incorrect.In the Complaint, the causes of action are 11 largely split between the non-debtor defendants and the Debtor and Mr. Girardi.Thus, M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 given that most of the causes of action are against the Debtor and Mr. Girardi, Bedford C 1 7 el   T 17 will not be forced to re-litigate similar issues against the non-debtor Defendants.

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP Lei Lei Wang Ekvall, State Bar No. 163047 2 lekvall@swelawfirm.com Philip E. Strok, State Bar No. 169296 3 pstrok@swelawfirm.com Timothy W. Evanston, State Bar No. 319342 4 tevanston@swelawfirm.com 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 250 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714 445-1000 6 Facsimile: 714 445-1002 7 Attorneys for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 2  0 12 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 G IRARDI KEESE, C hapter 7 alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 Debtor. OGRPPOOUSPI,T AIOPNC 'TSO M BOETDIOFNO RFDO RL ARWEL IEF a, C 00   FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY UNDER es 10 15 11 U.S.C. § 362 (ACTION IN osta M 4 445‐ 16 N ONBANKRUPTCY FORUM) C 1 7 el   Date: March 9, 2021 T 17 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm.: 1668 via ZoomGov 18 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 19 Web Address: https://cacb.zoomgov.com/ 20 Meeting ID: 1614400097 Password: 123456 21 Telephone: (669) 251 5252 (San Jose) (646) 828 7666 (New York) 22 23 24 25 26 27

1

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Pag 3 4 I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5 II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 6 A.  The Debtor's Bankruptcy Case ..................................................................... 7 B.  The State Court Action ................................................................................. 8 III.  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ............................................... 9 A.  Bedford Fails to Establish Cause for Relief from the Automatic Stay ........... 10 1.  Relief from Stay will Harm the Estate ................................................ 11 2.  Any Potential Harm to Bedford is Outweighed by the Harm the Estate Will Suffer ............................................................................... 2  0 12 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 3.  Judicial Economy Weighs Against Granting the Motion .................... alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 4.  BMeedriftosr .d.. .D...o..e..s. .N...o..t. .D...e..m...o..n.s..t.r.a..t.e.. .I.t. .I.s.. .L..i.k..e..l.y. .t.o.. .S...u..c.c..e..e..d.. .o..n.. .t.h..e.. .......... a, C 00   es 10 15 IV.  CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 1osta M 4 445‐ 16 C 1 7 el   T 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

2

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Pag 3 CASES  4 Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 5 7 Cal. 4th 503, 516 (1994) .................................................................................... 1 6 Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc., (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................... 7 Ginsberg v. Gamson, 8 205 Cal. App. 4th 873, 896 (2012) ........................................................................ 1 9 Green v. Brotman Med. Ctr. (In re Brotman Med. Ctr., Inc.), 2008 WL 8444797 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) ....................................................... 10 In re Curtis, 11 40 B.R. 795, 799-800 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984) .......................................................... 2  0 12 In re Johnson, 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 115 B.R. 634, 636 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989) .............................................................. alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 In re Ko6r1e8a Bn .WR.. 2P8re2s, b2y8t9e r(iBana nCkhr.u Crc.hD .o Cf Laol. s2 A02n0g)e .l.e..s..,. . ..................................................... a, C 00   es 10 15 In re Landmark Fence Co., Inc., osta M 4 445‐ 16 2011 WL 6826253 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................... C 1 7 el   In re Plumberex, T 17 311 B.R. 551, 557 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................. 18 In re United Imports, Inc., 203 B.R. 162, 166 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1996) ............................................................... 19 Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 20 405 B.R. 915, 921 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 21 22 STATUTES  23 11 U.S.C. § 303(g) ............................................................................................................. 24 11 U.S.C. § 362 ................................................................................................................. 25 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) ........................................................................................................ 26 27

3

1 THE HONORABLE BARRY RUSSELL, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: 2 Elissa D. Miller, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") for the bankruptcy estate 3 (the "Estate") of Girardi Keese (the "Debtor"), submits the opposition (the "Opposition") t 4 Bedford Law Group, APC's ("Bedford") Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 5 11 U.S.C. § 362 (Action in Nonbankruptcy Forum) (the "Motion"). 6 I. INTRODUCTION 7 The Court should deny Bedford's Motion as Bedford has failed to establish cause 8 to grant relief from stay to allow Bedford to proceed against the Debtor in the State Court 9 Action (as defined below). The State Court Action is in its infancy. If the Motion is 10 granted, the Estate will be forced to incur unnecessary administrative expenses that will 11 diminish the recovery to the Estate's creditors. As a potential unsecured creditor, 2  0 12 Bedford's request is likely adverse to its own self-interest. It is in the best interest of the 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 Estate and all creditors if Bedford's claim is addressed through the claims allowance alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 process. The claims allowance process will be more cost-effective, efficient, and prevena, C 00   es 10 15 the Estate from incurring unnecessary expenses. There is no cause to grant the Motion. M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 In support of its request, Bedford offers factually incorrect statements that are easily C 1 7 el   T 17 disproven and misstates its own evidence, all while failing to describe any particular har18 it will suffer if relief from stay is not granted. For example, Bedford states that Thomas V19 Girardi is not in bankruptcy; a fact which is simply untrue. In short, Bedford has not met 20 its burden and the Motion should be denied. 21 22 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23 A. The Debtor's Bankruptcy Case 24 On December 18, 2020, petitioning creditors Jill O'Callahan, as successor in 25 interest to James O'Callahan, Robert M. Keese, John Abassian, Erika Saldana, Virginia 26 27

4

1 Antonio, and Kimberly Archie (collectively, the "Petitioning Creditors") filed an involuntary2 chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against the Debtor.1 3 On December 24, 2020, the Petitioning Creditors filed a Motion for Appointment o 4 Interim Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303(g) [Docket No. 12]. The Court entered an 5 order granting the motion on January 5, 2021 [Docket No. 45]. On January 6, 2021, the 6 Trustee was appointed as the interim trustee [Docket No. 50]. 7 On January 13, 2021, the Court entered an Order Directing: (1) The Clerk of Cour8 to Immediately Enter an Order for Relief under Chapter 7; (2) The United States Trustee 9 to Immediately Appoint a Chapter 7 Trustee; (3) The Debtor to File All Schedules and 10 Related Documentation for Chapter 7 Case within Fourteen Days of the Entry of this 11 Order; and (4) Vacating February 16, 2021 Status Conference [Docket No. 68]. On 2  0 12 January 13, 2021, the Clerk of Court entered an order for relief against the Debtor 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 [Docket No. 69], and the Trustee was appointed and accepted her appointment in the alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 Debtor's case [Docket No. 70]. On February 9, 2021, Bedford filed the Motion [Docket a, C 00   es 10 15 No. 170]. M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 B. The State Court Action C 1 7 el   T 17 Bedford alleges that it filed a lawsuit on August 31, 2020 in the Los Angeles 18 Superior Court as case number 20STCV33498 (the "State Court Action") against Thoma19 V. Girardi, "Girardi Keese Lawyers," and eleven other defendants.2 On or about Octobe20 21, 2020, Shawn Azizzadeh and Bedford filed their First Amended Complaint (the 21 "Complaint"). See Ex. 1, Motion. The Complaint alleges that the Debtor and Bedford 22 entered into an alleged agreement to split the attorney fees recovered from Fulton v. 23 Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., LASC Case No. BC614754 (the "Case"), with Bedford to 24 receive 25% of the attorneys' fees recovered. The Complaint further alleges that the 25 Case subsequently settled, and that the Debtor breached its agreement by not splitting it26 1 The Petitioning Creditors also filed an involuntary bankruptcy case against Thomas Girardi, which 27 is currently pending as Bankruptcy Case No. 2:20-bk-21020-BR. 2 The Complaint seeks relief against "Girardi Keese Lawyers," not the Debtor.

5

1 fees with Bedford pursuant to their agreement. According to the Motion, the Complaint 2 was served on the Debtor on December 4, 2020, two weeks before the involuntary 3 petition was filed. In addition, "discovery has just begun" in the State Court Action. See 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 5, lines 22-28, Motion. 5 6 III. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7 A. Bedford Fails to Establish Cause for Relief from the Automatic Stay 8 Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the court shall grant relief 9 from the automatic stay for cause. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). "What constitutes 'cause' for 10 granting relief from the automatic stay is decided on a case-by-case basis." 11 Kronemyer v. Am. Contractors Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915, 921 (B.A.P. 2  0 12 9th Cir. 2009); Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc., (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.20 92626  4 445‐1 13 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). "To obtain relief from the automatic stay, the party seeking alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 relief must first establish a prima facie case that 'cause' exists for relief under a, C 00   es 10 15 § 362(d)(1)." In re Plumberex, 311 B.R. 551, 557 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004). "Once a M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the debtor to show that relief C 1 7 el   T 17 from the stay is unwarranted." Id. "The decision whether to grant or deny stay relief is 18 within the broad discretion of the bankruptcy court." Id. at 558. 19 Courts have identified various factors relevant to determining whether the stay 20 should be lifted to allow a creditor to continue pending litigation in a nonbankruptcy 21 forum. See In re Johnson, 115 B.R. 634, 636 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989); In re Curtis, 40 22 B.R. 795, 799-800 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984). The following twelve nonexclusive factors 23 were discussed in Curtis as issues that a bankruptcy court might consider in determining24 whether to lift the stay to permit pending litigation to continue in another forum: 25 1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; 26 2. The lack of any connection with or interference with the 27 bankruptcy case;

6

1 3. Whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; 2 4. Whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the 3 particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; 4 5 5, Whether the debtor's insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; 6 6. Whether the action essentially involves third parties and the 7 debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the goods or 8 proceeds in question; 9 7. Whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditors' committee and other 10 interested parties; 11 8. Whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is 2  0 12 subject to equitable subordination under Section 510(c); 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 9. Whether movant's success in the foreign proceeding would result alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 i n a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); a, C 00   10. The interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and es 10 15 M 5‐ economical determination of litigation for the parties; osta  4 44 16 C 1 7 el   11. Whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point T 17 where the parties are prepared for trial; and 18 12. The impact of the stay on the parties and the "balance of hurt." 19 20 "In determining whether cause exists under such circumstances, the 'bankruptcy 21 court must balance the potential hardship that will be incurred by the party seeking relief 22 if the stay is not lifted against the potential prejudice to the debtor and the bankruptcy 23 estate.'" Green v. Brotman Med. Ctr. (In re Brotman Med. Ctr., Inc.), 2008 WL 8444797 24 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008) citing In re United Imports, Inc., 203 B.R. 162, 166 (Bankr. D. 25 Neb. 1996). "[W]hile the Curtis Factors are widely used to determine the existence of 26 'cause,' not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give 27 each factor equal weight." In re Korean W. Presbyterian Church of Los Angeles, 618

7

1 6826253 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Application of the most relevant Curtis factors—7, 10, 12 and 12—to the instant Motion overwhelmingly support the conclusion that relief from sta3 should be denied as no cause has been demonstrated. 4 1. Relief from Stay will Harm the Estate 5 The Estate will be harmed if the Court grants the Motion. If the State Court Action6 moves forward, the Estate will have to incur unnecessary administrative expenses. 7 Specifically, the Trustee will need to engage counsel to defend the Debtor in the State 8 Court Action. The fees and expenses of defense counsel will be administrative 9 expenses. These administrative claims will diminish recovery to the Estate's creditors, 10 including Bedford, if Bedford is successful on its claims. Thus, lifting the stay to allow 11 Bedford to liquidate its claim in the State Court Action will prejudice all unsecured 2  0 12 creditors, including Bedford. 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 Given the increased administrative costs the Estate will be forced to incur, it is alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 more appropriate for Bedford to file a proof of claim in the Debtor's case. The claims a, C 00   es 10 15 process may only necessitate that Bedford file a proof of claim. Assuming Bedford M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 supports its claim with adequate documentation and no party opposes the claim, no C 1 7 el   T 17 further action may be necessary.3 Thus, it will be more expeditious and cost-effective, 18 and in the interest of the Estate and all creditors, to liquidate Bedford's claim through the 19 claims allowance process. Both the Estate and Bedford will directly benefit through this 20 process. 21 Bedford's claims that the Estate will not be burdened because defense expenses 22 for both Mr. Girardi and the Debtor "are likely one in the same" and that "Mr. Girardi, the 23 individual, would be incurring defense costs…" are incorrect. See Memorandum of 24 Points and Authorities at 6, lines 16-18. The expenses for the Debtor and Mr. Girardi do 25 not overlap, and Mr. Girardi will not be responsible for the Debtor's defense costs. 26 Instead, the Debtor and Mr. Girardi are each responsible for their own defense costs. 27 3 The Trustee reserves all rights to contest and object to Bedford's proof of claim(s) if and when file

8

1 This is made clear by the fact that there are two different bankruptcy cases with separate2 trustees, with one case pending for the Debtor and another case pending for Mr. Girardi 3 individually. Bedford offers no rationale or explanation for these erroneous statements. 4 None exist. Because the Estate will be harmed by relief from stay, there is no cause to 5 grant the Motion. 6 2. Any Potential Harm to Bedford is Outweighed by the Harm the 7 Estate Will Suffer 8 Bedford will likely not suffer any prejudice if the Motion is denied. Without any 9 support, Bedford summarily states that it will be "severely prejudiced if the stay is not 10 lifted to allow Bedford Law Group…to litigate its claims…" See Memorandum of Points 11 and Authorities at 5, lines 15-16, Motion. Aside from an alleged "multiplicity of suits" and2  0 12 desire to litigate in state court, Bedford does not detail any specific hardship it will suffer i0 92626  4 445‐1 13 the State Court Action is stayed. alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 Bedford will not be harmed if the underlying claims in the State Court Action are a, C 00   es 10 15 heard before this Court. Bedford plainly admits that the State Court Action was only M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 recently filed. According to Bedford, the Complaint was served on the Debtor just two C 1 7 el   T 17 weeks before the involuntary petition was commenced, and no trial date has been set. 18 Bedford further concedes that "discovery has just begun." See Memorandum of Points 19 and Authorities at 5, line 26. This is not a years-long case with a storied history in state 20 court. Nor does this case involve a debtor that has filed for bankruptcy on the eve of trial21 in a bad faith effort to stall litigation. The State Court Action is new. Bedford will suffer 22 no similar harm if the State Court Action is stayed. 23 The State Court Action is a simple breach of contract case. There is no 24 specialized tribunal or particularized expertise needed to resolve the State Court Action. 25 Bedford's desire to be in state court does not outweigh the harm the Estate will suffer if 26 the Motion is granted. 27 Bedford also overstates the risk of a multiplicity of suits if relief is not granted.

9

1 suggests that denial of the Motion will result in a "multiplicity of suits" in part because Mr. 2 Girardi is not a Debtor. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 4, lines 25-28. In3 fact, Bedford repeatedly states that Mr. Girardi is not a debtor. See Memorandum of 4 Points and Authorities at 2, lines 5-6, Motion ("Neither Thomas V. Girardi, nor the…other 5 Defendants in the state court action have filed for bankruptcy."); id. at 4, lines 25-26; id. 6 6, lines 15-16 ("Mr. Girardi himself is a non-debtor Defendant…"). Again, Bedford is 7 clearly wrong. Mr. Girardi is a debtor, and his individual case is currently pending before8 this Court. See Bankruptcy Case No. 2:20-bk-21020-BR. 9 Moreover, any potential danger from a "multiplicity of suits" is less likely to result 10 because of the way the Complaint is drafted. In the Complaint, the causes of action are 11 largely split between the non-debtor defendants and the Debtor and Mr. Girardi. 2  0 12 Specifically, there are eight causes of action. However, only two of these causes of 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 action are against all defendants.4 See Ex. 1, Motion. Moreover, Bedford concedes thatalifornia  •  Fax 71 14 "causes of action two…and three…are not made against Thomas V. Girardi" or the a, C 00   es 10 15 Debtor. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 2, lines 21-23, Motion. Thus, M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 given that most of the causes of action are against the Debtor and Mr. Girardi, Bedford C 1 7 el   T 17 will not be forced to re-litigate similar issues against the non-debtor Defendants. 18 Accordingly, there is no clear harm to Bedford. 19 Any potential "harm" that Bedford may suffer by not litigating in state court is far 20 outweighed by the harm the Estate will suffer. As discussed earlier, the Estate will be 21 forced to incur additional administrative fees that will reduce the recovery to unsecured 22 creditors, which may potentially include Bedford. In contrast, Bedford will be unable to 23 litigate a brand-new case in state court. Bedford has made no showing how its harm (if 24 any) is greater than the harm to the Estate, nor has Bedford discussed how litigating the 25 State Court Action will be more cost-effective for all parties. 26 4 Only the fifth and sixth causes of action are against the Debtor, Mr. Girardi, and the non-debtor 27 defendants. The second and third causes of action are only against the non-debtor defendants and not against the Debtor or Mr. Girardi. Finally, the first, fourth, seventh, and eighth causes of action are only against the Debtor and Mr. Girardi.

10

1 3. Judicial Economy Weighs Against Granting the Motion 2 Bedford's Motion undermines judicial economy. The claims process in this Court 3 is more efficient than litigating the underlying claims in the State Court Action. As noted 4 earlier, Bedford is only required to file a proof of claim with adequate support. Dependin5 on Bedford's claim, no further action may be necessary and the claim may be deemed 6 allowed. In contrast, there will be additional delay if the State Court Action is permitted t7 proceed and additional judicial resources will be wasted. 8 Granting the Motion will result in duplicative work for the Court. The Motion name 9 Bedford as the only moving party. The Motion also requests an order be entered 10 granting relief from the automatic stay, but only as to Bedford. But Bedford is not the onl11 plaintiff. Shawn Azizzadeh is also a named plaintiff in the Complaint. See Ex. 1, Motion. 2  0 12 As such, even if the Motion is granted, the automatic stay will apply in full force to Mr. 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 Azizzadeh and he will also need to seek relief from the automatic stay to proceed againsalifornia  •  Fax 71 14 the Debtor in the State Court Action. As of the filing of this Opposition, neither Bedford a, C 00   es 10 15 nor Mr. Azizzadeh have filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in Mr. Girardi's M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 individual case. Thus, at least two more motions will need to be filed, heard, and granteC 1 7 el   T 17 by the Court before the State Court Action can resume. This process is clearly inefficien18 The Court will have to wait for these motions to be prepared, filed, and set for hearing, 19 and will again be required to spend time reviewing pleadings that are likely to be very 20 similar to the Motion. There is no need for the Court to burden itself with duplicative 21 work. Denying the Motion will prevent the Court from further expending judicial resource22 and will save time and expenses for all involved. 23 4. Bedford Does Not Demonstrate It Is Likely to Succeed on the 24 Merits 25 Bedford fails to show any likelihood that it will succeed on the merits in the State 26 Court Action. In support of this contention, Bedford attaches the Complaint as Exhibit 1, 27 and an email from a former attorney of the Debtor as Exhibit 3. Bedford also represents

11

1 split fees between the Debtor and Bedford on April 14, 2016. See Declaration of Shawn 2 Azizzadeh at ¶ 5. 3 Bedford's evidence does not establish that it is likely to succeed in the State Court 4 Action. Bedford asserts that it has attached a letter from Mr. Girardi as Exhibit 2 in whic 5 Mr. Girardi allegedly agreed on behalf of the Debtor to split fees recovered from the Cas6 with Bedford. The Motion has no such letter from Mr. Girardi. Rather, Exhibit 2 is an 7 email dated May 21, 2019 from Samantha Gold that references the alleged agreement t8 divide fees between the Debtor and Bedford, but states the alleged agreement was 9 withdrawn by Mr. Girardi. Aside from this email, Bedford offers no evidence of any 10 alleged agreement with the Debtor, violating Federal Rule of Evidence 1002. Moreover, 11 the emails in Exhibits 2 and 3 are inadmissible hearsay. Bedford's flimsy evidence falls 2  0 12 far short of proving any likelihood of success. 0 92626  4 445‐1 13 The Complaint itself also indicates that Bedford is not likely to prevail. In the alifornia  •  Fax 71 14 Complaint's prayer, Bedford requests punitive damages, as well as "[g]eneral and speciaa, C 00   es 10 15 damages, including mental and emotional distress…for breach of the implied covenant oM 5‐ osta  4 44 16 good faith and fair dealing…" Punitive damages cannot be awarded for claims based onC 1 7 el   T 17 breach of contract. See Ginsberg v. Gamson, 205 Cal. App. 4th 873, 896 (2012) 18 ("Punitive damages may not be awarded as relief in a breach of contract claim."). 19 Similarly, emotional distress damages are generally not awarded on breach of contract 20 claims. See Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 516 (1994) 21 ("[D]amages for mental suffering and emotional distress are generally not compensable 22 in contract actions."). Bedford has failed to make any showing that it will prevail on its 23 claims in the State Court Action. 24 In sum, Bedford has failed to meet its burden of establishing cause. Relief from 25 stay will harm the Estate by forcing it to incur unnecessary expenses. In stark contrast, 26 Bedford will likely not suffer any harm. Moreover, the claims allowance process provides27 a more cost-effective and efficient alternative that benefits all parties. Bedford's request

12

1 also undercuts judicial economy, and there is no evidence that Bedford is likely to prevail2 in the State Court Action. Ultimately, there is no cause to grant the Motion. 3 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee requests that the Court enter an order 6 denying the Motion. 7 8 DATED: February 23, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 9 SMILEY WANG-EKVALL, LLP 10 11 By: /s/ Timothy W. Evanston 2  00 12 TIMOTHY W. EVANSTON alifornia 92626  •  Fax 714 445‐1 1134 ATrtutosrtneeey s for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 a, C 00   es 10 15 M 5‐ osta  4 44 16 C 1 7 el   T 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

13

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is 3200 ark Center Drive, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): OPPOSITION TO BEDFORD LAW GROUP, APC'S OTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362 (ACTION IN NON BANKRUPTCY ORUM) will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b the manner stated below: . TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General rders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On (date) ebruary 23, 2021 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined thate following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated elow:  Service information continued on attached pag . SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: n (date) February 23, 2021 , I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this ankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United tates mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that ailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. he Honorable Barry Russell .S. Bankruptcy Court oybal Federal Building 55 E. Temple Street, Suite 1660 os Angeles, CA 90012  Service information continued on attached pag . SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method r each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) 2/23/2021, I served the llowing persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to uch service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration at personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is led. ia E-Mail: hawn Azizzadeh edford Law Group hawn@bedfordlg.com  Service information continued on attached pag declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. February 23, 2021 Gabriela Gomez-Cruz /s/ Gabriela Gomez-Cruz Date Printed Name Signature

14

ADDITIONAL SERVICE INFORMATION (if needed): . SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”)  Kyra E Andrassy kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Rafey Balabanian , docket@edelson.com  Michelle Balady mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com  Richard D Buckley richard.buckley@arentfox.com  Marie E Christiansen mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen-4166@ecf.pacerpro.com  Jennifer Witherell Crastz jcrastz@hrhlaw.com  Ashleigh A Danker Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com  Clifford S Davidson csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-7586@ecf.pacerpro.com  Lei Lei Wang Ekvall lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Richard W Esterkin richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com  Timothy W Evanston tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  James J Finsten , jimfinsten@hotmail.com  Alan W Forsley alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.com,laura.rucker@flpllp.com  Eric D Goldberg eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com  Andrew Goodman agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com  Suzanne C Grandt suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov  Steven T Gubner sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law  Marshall J Hogan mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com  Razmig Izakelian razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com  Lewis R Landau Lew@Landaunet.com  Daniel A Lev dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com  Peter J Mastan peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com  Edith R Matthai ematthai@romalaw.com  Kenneth Miller kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com  Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com  Eric A Mitnick MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com  Scott H Olson solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson- 2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com  Leonard Pena lpena@penalaw.com, penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com  Michael J Quinn mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com  Ronald N Richards ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com,justin@ronaldrichards.com  Philip E Strok pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com  Boris Treyzon jfinnerty@actslaw.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com  United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov  Eric D Winston ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com  Christopher K.S. Wong christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com  Timothy J Yoo tjy@lnbyb.com

15