HTML Document View

Full title: Opposition to (related document(s): 318 Application to Employ Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. as Special Litigation Counsel Chapter 7 Trustee's Application to Employ the Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C., as Special Litigation Counsel; Declaration of Ronald Rich filed by Trustee Elissa Miller (TR)) Opposition of Erika Girardi to Chapter 7 Trustee's Application to Employ the Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. as Special Litigation Counsel; Declaration of Peter J. Mastan in Support Thereof; Request for Hearing on Application Filed by Interested Party Erika Girardi (Mastan, Peter) (Entered: 05/10/2021)

Document posted on May 9, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 69 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Since December of 2020, Mr. Richards has made over 290 comments and 8 posted dozens of pictures via Twitter on a near daily basis about Mr. Girardi and Erika.A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 (The Finn Firm and Mr. Finn are collectively referred to as the “Finn Plaintiffs” and the LOS 310‐8 15 Sheldon Plaintiffs and the Finn Plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”).The 19 Girardi Defendants did not make any payment to the Sheldon Plaintiffs and, on December 20, 20 2018, Defendant Girardi again wrote another letter to Mr. Sheldon with the subject line “TXI 21 Referrals,” stating: “My dear pal: I know you will never believe this, but we are getting much 22 closer.Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Finn were each older than 65 years of age at the time of 4 the conduct, and Defendants Girardi’s, GK’s, Lira’s, Finnerty’s and Does 21-40’s conduct was 5 a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs Sheldon’s and Finn’s harm.In doing these acts, Defendants Girardi, GK, Lira, Finnerty and Does 21-40, 7 and each of them, acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, as defined by 8 California Civil Code section 3294(c), and Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn are therefore also 9 entitled to punitive and/or exemplary damages, and damages for pain and suffering as provided 10 in California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 Peter J. Mastan (State Bar No. 190250) peter.mastan@dinsmore.com 2 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1765 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213-335-7737 4 5 Attorneys for Erika Girardi 6 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DIVISION 9 10 In re ) Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR ) 11 ) Chapter 7 GIRARDI KEESE, ) 12 ) OPPOSITION OF ERIKA GIRARDI TO ) CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S APPLICATION 13 Debtor. ) TO EMPLOY THE LAW OFFICES OF ) RONALD RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, 14 ) A.P.C. AS SPECIAL LITIGATION ) COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF PETER J. 15 ) MASTAN IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ) REQUEST FOR HEARING ON 16 ) APPLICATION ) 17 ) ) (L.B.R. 9013-1(o)(4)) 18 ) ) Date: To Be Set 19 ) Time: ) Ctrm: 1668 20 ) 255 E. Temple St. ) Los Angeles, CA 90012 21 ) Judge: Hon. Barry Russell 22 23 24 25 26 27

1

1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Erika Girardi (“Erika”) is the current, but estranged, spouse of Thomas Vincent Girardi. 3 Girardi is a debtor in related Case No. 2:20-bk-21020-BR (the “Girardi Case”). He is also a 4 principal of Girardi Keese, the debtor (the “Debtor” or “GK”) in this case (the “GK Case”). Eliss 5 D. Miller is the Chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) in this case. Erika submits this Opposition to th 6 application (ECF No. 318, the “Application”) filed on April 26, 2021 by the Trustee for authority 7 employ Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. (the “Richards Firm”) as special litigation counsel. 8 Ronald N. Richards is the principal of the Richards Firm. 9 As described in the Application, the Trustee contends that Erika “may” have received 10 avoidable transfers from the Debtor. Application, 2:22-23. Although not a single potentially 11 avoidable transfer is identified, she seeks authority to employ the Richards Firm on a contingency12 fee basis as special litigation counsel under 11 U.S.C. § 327(c) and/or (e) for the limited purpose 13 “investigating and recovering” the alleged transfers to Erika. Application, 3:9-10. Erika 14 understands that such investigation must take place as part of the Trustee’s duties. She is also 15 aware that Jason Rund, the trustee in the Girardi Case, has sought to employ (see ECF No. 168 on16 the Girardi Case docket) Abir, Cohen, Treyzon, Salo, LLP (“ACTS”) as special litigation counsel 17 that case for the same purpose. Significantly, Erika did not object to the employment of ACTS. 18 Here, however, Erika objects to the employment of the Richards Firm on the grounds that 19 that firm has actual conflicts of interest which disqualify it from acting as special counsel to the 20 Trustee. First, the Richards Firm represents—and continues to represent—plaintiffs in the 21 competing Sheldon Litigation (defined below) asserting the very same alleged fraudulent transfer 22 claims against Erika that he now seeks to prosecute on behalf of the Trustee and which belong 23 exclusively to the bankruptcy estate. Not only does the continued assertion of these alleged claim24 violate the automatic stay by seeking a recovery on claims that belong to the bankruptcy estate, it 25 compromises any advice the Richards Firm might render to the Trustee with respect thereto. 26 Second, the plaintiffs in the Sheldon Litigation, two law firms, assert that they have claim27 against the estate based on purported oral fee-splitting agreements with the Debtor. In California,

2

1 to take a position on these claims. Her fiduciary duties will require her to object to them. If she 2 fails to object, or compromises these patently objectionable claims, such negotiation with her own 3 counsel gives rise, at a minimum, to the appearance of impropriety and undermines the Bankruptc 4 Code’s fundamental underpinnings of transparency and independence of bankruptcy trustee. Not 5 only does this make the Trustee actually adverse to these purported claimants, the Richards Firm i 6 conflicted as to any confidential information it has or may acquire from one or either of these 7 proposed clients during discovery that further undermines these claims. 8 Finally, aside from his actual conflicts of interest, it is clear that Mr. Richards’ motivation 9 include promoting himself with tabloid-style publicity on social media, rather than maintaining th10 decorum appropriate to litigants before a bankruptcy court. Since December 4, 2020, Mr. Richar11 has made at least 290 social media posts about this case and/or Erika. Copies of certain of these 12 posts are attached hereto as Exhibit C. For example on April 12, 2021, Mr. Richards tweeted: 13 “Your First Look at The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Season 11 . . . . A nice preview of all 14 the impeachable statements @erikajayne will make . . .” reflecting an apparent bias and 15 prejudgment of Erika and the issues. Mr. Richards has also commented on Erika’s marital 16 residence, her current residence, posted pictures of Mr. Girardi alongside pictures of Bernie Mado17 and Pete Rose, posted pictures and commentary about an alleged burglary at the Girardi’s marital 18 residence, and repeatedly ended his tweets with the hashtag “GirardiFraud.” See Exhibit C. Whi19 this conduct may be appropriate for social media influencers, it is not appropriate for a lawyer 20 representing a party in a bankruptcy case, and is particularly unseemly for counsel to a trustee. 21 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 22 A. The Richards Firm’s Disclosures. 23 The Application’s disclosure regarding the Richards Firm’s disinterestedness and 24 connections to the GK Case consists of the following: 25 The firm is a small firm and Ronald Richards reviews all matters whrein [sic] the firm is employed or is potentially employed. Richards has 26 determined that the only case in which Richards is involved which has any connection to the Debtor or Thomas Girardi is that Richards is co-counsel 27 with Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP in conection [sic] with its

3

Offices of Robert Finn in connection with their claims for unpaid referral 1 fees by the Debtor [emphasis added]. 2 See Statement of Disinterestedness for Employment of Professional Person Under FRBP 2014) 3 attached to the Application, Q. 5 on p. 7 of 30 (using the Court’s header at the top of the page). 4 B. The Pending Sheldon Litigation. 5 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the First Amended Complaint (the “Sheldon 6 FAC”) filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, but now pending before this Court as 7 Adversary Proceeding No. 2:21-ap-01039-BR (the “Sheldon Litigation”), which is the basis of th 8 above-quoted disclosure. Among other things, the Sheldon FAC added Erika, EJ Global, LLC, an 9 Girardi Financial, Inc. as defendants. Although the Richards Firm is not listed on the caption of t10 Sheldon FAC, on January 29, 2021, the Richards Firm filed a Notice of Association of Counsel in 11 the Sheldon Litigation. See Exhibit B. 12 The Sheldon Litigation was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to this 13 Court on March 5, 2021. Since then, the plaintiffs have stipulated with each of the Trustees to the14 dismissal of both GK and Mr. Girardi. See ECF Nos. 15, 16, 18, and 22 in the Sheldon Litigation15 C. The Richards Firm Failed to Disclose At Least Two Conflicts of Interest. 16 As shown by the Sheldon FAC and discussed below, the Richards Firm’s disinterestedness17 disclosure in the Application omits at least two crucial details regarding the firm’s representation 18 the plaintiffs which make the Richards Firm actually adverse to the Trustee: (i) the causes of acti19 in that litigation, which the Richards Firm continues to prosecute, include the very same alleged 20 fraudulent transfer-type claims against Erika that belong exclusively to the GK estate and (ii) the 21 plaintiffs, two law firms, hold objectionable claims against the GK estate for oral fee-splitting 22 agreements. 23 As a result, the Trustee is actually adverse to the Richards Firm, which is violating the 24 automatic stay by continuing to pursue claims that belong exclusively to the bankruptcy estate an25 acting on behalf of the plaintiffs based on alleged, unenforceable oral fee-splitting agreements. In26 light of its fiduciary obligations to its existing clients, the plaintiffs, including any confidential 27 client information pertaining to the enforceability of the alleged oral fee-splitting agreement, the

4

1 Richards Firm is ethically compromised in its proposed representation of the Trustee, and its 2 employment should be denied. 3 III. BECAUSE THE RICHARDS FIRM HAS ACTUAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4 WITH THE TRUSTEE, THE APPLICATION MUST BE DENIED 5 A. Actual Conflicts of Interest Require Denial of the Application 6 The Trustee seeks to employ the Richards Firm pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327 (c) and/or (e). 7 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327(c): 8 [A] person is not disqualified for employment under this section solely 9 because of such person’s employment by or representation of a creditor, unless there is objection by another creditor or the United States trustee, in 10 which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an actual conflict of interest [emphasis added]. 11 In the Central District of California and throughout the country, bankruptcy courts conclude that: 12 13 [i]f there is any doubt as to the existence of a conflict, that doubt should be resolved in favor of disqualification. See, e.g., In re Michigan General 14 Corp., 78 Bankr. 479, 484 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1987), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Diamond Lumber v. Unsecured Creditors' Committee, 88 Bankr. 15 773 (N.D. Tex. 1988); In re Johore Investment Co. (U.S.A.), 49 Bankr. 710, 713 (Bankr. D. Ha. 1985). Negligence does not excuse the failure to 16 disclose a possible conflict of interest. Michigan General, supra, 78 Bankr. at 482; In re Coastal Equities, 39 Bankr. 304, 308 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1984). 17 18 See In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 177 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1988). Although Lee involved the employment19 of counsel under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), the principal is equally applicable to employment under 20 Sections 327(c) or (e): disclosure must be full and candid and actual conflicts of interest necessari21 result in denial of employment. 22 Similarly, Section 327(e) permits the employment of counsel by a trustee for a special 23 purpose even though the proposed counsel is not disinterested, provided that the proposed counsel24 “does not represent or hold any interest adverse to the debtor or to the estate with respect to the 25 matter on which such attorney is to be employed.” 11 U.S.C. § 327(e). The term "adverse interes26 is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, but case law has defined it to mean: (1) possession or 27 assertion of an economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate; or (

5

1 dispute in which the estate is the rival claimant; or (3) possession of a predisposition under 2 circumstances that create a bias against the estate. Dye v. Brown (In re AFI Holding, Inc.), 530 F. 3 832, 845 (9th Cir. 2008). To represent an adverse interest includes serving as an attorney for a par 4 who holds such an adverse interest. Tevis v. Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP (In re 5 Tevis), 347 B.R. 679, 688 (9th Cir. BAP 2006). 6 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014(a) requires an employment application to stat 7 among other things, "all of . . . [the proposed professional's] connections with the debtor, creditor 8 [and] any other party in interest . . . ." The Rule further requires that the professional's 9 accompanying verified statement set forth these same disclosures. Full disclosure is required for 10 both employment and compensation. Neben & Starrett, Inc. v. Chartwell Fin. Corp. (In re Park–11 Helena Corp.), 63 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 1995). A professional has a duty to make full, candid a12 complete disclosure of all facts concerning his transactions with the debtor, and must disclose all 13 connections with the debtor, creditors, and parties in interest, no matter how irrelevant or trivial 14 those connections may seem. Mehdipour v. Marcus & Millichap (In re Mehdipour), 202 B.R. 4715 480 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). 16 Rule 2014's disclosure requirements are applied strictly. Neben & Starrett, 63 F.3d at 881-17 882. Even negligent or inadvertent failures may result in adverse consequences. Id. at 882. Upon18 failure to comply with disclosure requirements, employment may be denied or revoked, or other 19 sanctions imposed "even if proper disclosure would have shown that the attorney had not actually20 violated any Bankruptcy Code provision or any Bankruptcy Rule." Id. at 880. 21 B. The Claims of the Plaintiffs in the Sheldon FAC Are Actually Adverse to the 22 Proposed Special Representation 23 Avoidance actions arising under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, including those arisin24 under state law (such as conversion) under Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, belong 25 exclusively to the estate. See Custom Food Grp., LP v. McCulloch (In re Wilson), 527 B.R. 253 26 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015). In Wilson, the Court found: 27 Avoidance actions belong to the estate. In re Educators Grp. Health

6

76 (5th Cir. 1983). "If a cause of action belongs to the estate, then the trustee has 1 exclusive standing to assert the claim." Educators Grp., 25 F.3d at 1284 (citations omitted); see also Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 2 530 U.S. 1, 7, 120 S. Ct. 1942, 147 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2000) (holding that an administrative claimant does not have standing to seek payment of its claim 3 under § 506(c) because the language of the statute reserves standing on that provision to the trustee); Reed v. Cooper (In re Cooper), 405 B.R. 801, 807 4 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009) (only the trustee has independent standing to pursue chapter 5 avoidance actions); Klingman v. Levinson, 158 B.R. 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 5 1993) (once bankruptcy case commences, trustee has right to pursue fraudulently conveyed assets to exclusion of creditors). 6 In Hartford Underwriters, the Supreme Court held that an administrative claimant does not have standing to seek payment of its claim under § 506(c). 530 7 U.S. at 14. In doing so, the Supreme Court inquired if the text of § 506(c) stating that "[t]he trustee may recover . . ." means that the trustee is the only party 8 empowered to invoke its provisions. Id. at 5—6. The Court examined the language and held that "exclusivity is intended." Id. at 6. In doing so, the Court 9 said that "a situation in which a statute authorizes specific action and designates a particular party empowered to take it is surely among the least appropriate in 10 which to presume nonexclusivity." Id. The Court also stated that "had Congress intended the provision to be broadly available, it could simply have said so, as it 11 did in describing the parties who could act under other sections of the Code." Id. at 7. 12 Here, as in Hartford Underwriters, the sections of the Code under which CFG brings its causes of action, §§ 544 and 548, begin with "[t]he trustee shall . . 13 ." and "[t]he [**7] trustee may . . . ," respectively. 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(a); 548(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Code assigns standing to the trustee to 14 pursue these avoidance actions. 15 Id. at 255-56. 16 Pursuant to the Application, the Richards Firm proposes to investigate and recover alleged17 purportedly improper transfers to Erika for the benefit of the estate. Application, 3:9-10. Likewis18 pursuant to Counts 6 (Fraudulent Transfer) and 7 (Conversion) of the Sheldon FAC, the Richards 19 Firm seeks to recover such alleged, purportedly improper transfers from Erika for the benefit of th20 plaintiffs. See Exhibit B. The concurrent representation of these conflicting interests is no accid21 of timing. Since no later than March 2, 2021 and continuing through at least April 24, 2021, Ron22 Richards has emailed Peter Mastan of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP (“Dinsmore”) requesting that he 23 accept service of a summons and complaint against Erika in the Sheldon Litigation. April 24, 2024 is the day after the Application and Mr. Richards’ declaration regarding disinterestedness are 25 dated.1 In addition, on May 4, 2021, the Richards Firm filed a reply, ECF No. 27 in the Sheldon 26 27 1 The Application, including Mr. Richards’ Statement of Disinterestedness for Employment of

7

1 Litigation, in support of his pending remand motion in the Sheldon Litigation. Thus, not only is t 2 Richards Firm violating the automatic stay by continuing to prosecute alledged causes of action th 3 belong exclusively to the bankruptcy estate, he has continued to do so even after he signed on to 4 represent the Trustee. Such concurrent representations are unacceptable in bankruptcy cases whe 5 one of the attorneys represents the bankruptcy trustee. See Declaration of Peter J. Mastan, attache 6 hereto, ¶ 2. 7 Here, the Richards Firm cannot simultaneously represent the Trustee and the plaintiffs in t 8 Sheldon Litigation in investigating and prosecuting purported avoidance claims against Erika. Th 9 claims of his existing clients to the proceeds of any potential recoveries against Erika through the 10 Sheldon Litigation are adverse to the Trustee’s assertion of an exclusive right to pursue such 11 potential recoveries on behalf of the estate. The plaintiffs cannot separately collect on these alleg12 claims as doing so would deprive the estate of the purported asset. 13 C. The Trustee is Adverse to the Assertion of Claims Based on Fee Splitting by t14 Plaintiffs in the Sheldon Litigation 15 As noted above, Trustee Miller and Trustee Rund have each stipulated with the plaintiffs i16 the Sheldon Litigation to dismissal of the GK and Girardi estates, respectively. Each stipulation 17 notes that the plaintiffs are free to assert their purported claims by filing proofs of claim against 18 each estate. ECF Nos. 15 and 18 in the Sheldon Litigation. In their Reply in support of their 19 remand motion filed in the Sheldon Litigation filed on May 4, 2021, the plaintiffs, through Mr. 20 Richards, indicated their intention to pursue these claims: “Plaintiffs will pursue their claims agai21 the Girardi Debtors in these proceedings,….” ECF No. 27 in the Sheldon Litigation, 1:18-19. 22 The plaintiffs in the Sheldon Litigation are law firms: the Law Offices of Philip Sheldon 23 and The Law Offices of Robert Finn. As set forth in the Sheldon FAC, their claims against GK a24 Mr. Girardi are based on alleged breaches of purported, oral fee-splitting agreements. See Exhibi25 A, Count 1 (Breach of Contract, Count 2 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), Count 3 (Fraud), and Count26 (Money Had and Received) of the Sheldon FAC. 27

8

1 In California, fee-splitting agreements are required to be written. With respect to fee- 2 splitting, Rule 1.5.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (effective November 1, 2018 3 and superseding Rule 2-200), Fee Divisions Among Lawyers, provides: 4 (a) Lawyers who are not in the same law firm* shall not divide a fee for legal 5 services unless: (1) the lawyers enter into a written* agreement to divide the fee; (2) the client has consented in writing,* either at the time the lawyers enter into 6 the agreement to divide the fee or as soon thereafter as reasonably* practicable, after a full written* disclosure to the client of: (i) the fact that a division of fees 7 will be made; (ii) the identity of the lawyers or law firms* that are parties to the division; and (iii) the terms of the division; and (3) the total fee charged by all 8 lawyers is not increased solely by reason of the agreement to divide fees. (b) This rule does not apply to a division of fees pursuant to court order. 9 Comment The writing* requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) may be satisfied by one or more writings.* 10 Generally, judicial enforcement of a fee-splitting agreement will not be permitted absent a11 written agreement. See Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler (2012) 212 12 Cal.App.4th 172, 179-180 [151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134] (“Defendants frame the issue here as ‘a simple 13 question of law: May a lawyer seek to enforce a purported fee-splitting agreement against another14 lawyer when there has been no client consent to the agreement as mandated by [rule] 2-200? Und15 an unbroken line of California precedent, the answer to this question is a resounding, unequivocal16 ‘no.’’ ” See also Kessler v. Beitchman, 2016 Cal. Super. LEXIS 15043, *6-7: 17 Nonetheless, the Court is persuaded on the present record that, to be enforceable, 18 a fee-sharing agreement is valid only when the client consents to the amount that would be shared or the formula by which the sharing would be calculated." [Rules 19 of Professional Conduct], rule 2-200 aims to protect clients by requiring, inter alia, the attorney's written disclosure and the client's written consent to nonexempt 20 fee divisions.' (Chambers v. Kay (2002) 29 Cal.4th 142, 162, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 536, 56 P.3d 645 (Chambers ).) "Just as a client has a right to know how his or 21 her attorney's fees will be determined, he or she also has a right to know the extent of, and the basis for, the sharing of such fees by attorneys. Knowledge of 22 these matters helps assure the client that he or she will not be charged unwarranted fees just so that the attorney who actually provides the client with 23 representation on the legal matter has 'sufficient compensation' to be able to share fees with the referring attorney...." [Citation.]' (Id. at pp. 156-157, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 536, 56 P.3d 645.)" Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219, 226. This interpretation of the rule, particularly the language providing that the client "has a 25 right to know the extent of ... the sharing of such fees" reveals that the attorneys must disclose amount of shared fees or the manner of its calculation and the client 26 must consent. 27 Here, in the Sheldon FAC, the plaintiffs admit that their alleged fee-splitting agreements

9

1 agreed to jointly represent clients in the TXI Cases and share any fee recovery in addition to 2 reimbursement to Plaintiffs of Plaintiffs’ costs.”; Count 2: “43. Plaintiffs and the Girardi Defenda 3 had a fiduciary relationship that was established when the parties orally agreed to jointly represen 4 clients in the TXI Cases and share any fee recovery.”). Accordingly, any claims that they assert 5 against the estate based on such purported oral fee-splitting agreements are subject to objection b 6 the Trustee. As a result, the Trustee is actually adverse to any claims asserted by the Richards 7 Firm’s existing clients. Even if such claims were pursued by the Trustee’s general counsel, the 8 appearance of conflict and impropriety is overwhelming. 9 D. If the Court grants the Application, it should issue a Gag Order 10 If Mr. Richards is able to overcome his direct conflict of interest in representing the 11 bankruptcy estate, Erika hereby requests that this Court restrict Mr. Richards from making any 12 further extrajudicial comments about these proceedings. This is necessary to ensure the fairness o13 the judicial process and to ensure that Mr. Richards complies with his ethical obligations under th14 California Rules of Professional Conduct. 15 The California Rules of Professional Conduct specifically limit the lawyers ability to 16 comment in public about ongoing litigation. Rule 3.6 provides that: 17 [a] lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knowns or reasonable 18 should know will (i) be disseminated by means of public communication and (ii) have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding 19 in the matter. 20 There are limited exceptions to this rule – namely, that a lawyer may state basic facts about the 21 litigation such as identifying the claims and identities of the persons involved, or identifying 22 upcoming dates and deadlines. The exceptions do not excuse Mr. Richards’ historical conduct, 23 which goes far beyond these exceptions and should be stopped if his employment by the trustee is24 granted. 25 Tom Girardi is a long time Los Angeles trial lawyer who was recently accused in multiple26 forums of having misappropriated client settlements and to have otherwise violated his ethical an27 legal obligations. Mr. Girardi’s well known national profile within the legal community, coupled

10

1 particular matter to an extensive amount of publicity. While in many regards the publicity cannot 2 avoided given the circumstances, the attorneys involved in this bankruptcy and other related 3 litigation should not be permitted to further expose this matter to public scrutiny beyond the very 4 narrow exceptions imposed by the rules. 5 Mr. Richards has at least 13,000 followers on Twitter. According to his Twitter profile, h 6 is a former paid legal analyst for NBC News. He regularly posts Youtube videos and comments t 7 the press on this Case. Since December of 2020, Mr. Richards has made over 290 comments and 8 posted dozens of pictures via Twitter on a near daily basis about Mr. Girardi and Erika. A sampli 9 of these tweets is attached hereto as Exhibit C. On April 12, 2021, Mr. Richards boldly conclude10 that the latest season of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” is “[a] nice preview of all of the 11 impeachable statements @erikajayne will make plus more fake assertions of wealth fueled by the 12 show’s lust for material.” See Exhibit C. Mr. Richards has also commented on Erika’s marital 13 residence, her current residence, posted pictures of Mr. Girardi alongside pictures of Bernie Mado14 and Pete Rose, posted pictures and commentary about an alleged burglary at the Girardi’s marital 15 residence, and repeatedly ended his tweets with the hashtag “GirardiFraud.” See Exhibit C. This16 statement alone reflects Mr. Richards’ bias and prejudgement of Erika. Mr. Richards regularly 17 provides his own opinion and interpretation of this litigation and Erika’s participation herein. This18 conduct is both unbecoming of a lawyer and goes far beyond the limited exceptions to Rule 3.6 of19 the California Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer for a bankruptcy trustee is held to a high20 standard than a social media commentator. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons set forth above, the Court must deny the Application. If the Court disagre23 the Court should restrict Mr. Richards’ direct or indirect out-of-Court statements to the public, 24 except as narrowly permitted by the exceptions to Rule of Conduct 3.6. 25 DATED: May 10, 2021 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 26 By: /s/ Peter J. Mastan 27 Peter J. Mastan

11

1 DECLARATION OF PETER J. MASTAN 2 I, Peter J. Mastan, declare as follows: 3 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. I am one of the attorney4 at the firm responsible for the representation of Erika Girardi in this case. I have personal 5 knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify 6 competently thereto. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the same meanings 7 ascribed to them in the pleading to which this Declaration is attached. 8 2. Since no later than March 2, 2021 and continuing through at least April 24, 2021, 9 Ronald Richards has emailed me requesting acceptance of service of a summons and complaint 10 against Erika in the Sheldon Litigation. 11 3. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201, Erika requests that the Court take judicial notice of 12 the following: 13 a. Exhibit A hereto is a copy of the First Amended Complaint in the 14 action styled Law Offices of Philip R. Sheldon et al. v. Thomas R. Girardi et al., filed in the Los 15 Angeles County Superior Court and currently pending before this Court as Adversary Proceeding 16 No. 2:21-ap-01039-BR (the “Sheldon Litigation”). 17 b. Exhibit B hereto is a copy of the Notice of Association of Counsel 18 filed by Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C., in the Sheldon Litigation. 19 c. Exhibit C contains copies of tweets about the Cases posted by Mr. 20 Richards on his Twitter account since December 4, 2020, including the one posted on April 12, 21 2021 referred to in the Opposition. 22 d. Mr. Richards’ profile on his Twitter account, @RonaldRichards, 23 states that he has 13,000 followers and describes him as a former NBC News paid legal analyst. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27

12

1 e. Since December 4, 2020, Mr. Richards has posted at least 290 2 tweets about the Cases/ 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 4 foregoing is true and correct. 5 DATED: May 10, 2021 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 6 By: /s/ Peter J. Mastan 7 Peter J. Mastan Attorneys for Erika Girardi 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

13

14

1 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP James W. Spertus (SBN 159825) 2 Ezra D. Landes (SBN 253052) 1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705 3 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 826-4700 4 Facsimile: (310) 826-4711 jim@spertuslaw.com 5 ezra@spertuslaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 9 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. Case No.20STCV47160 SHELDON, APC, a California 10 professional corporation, PHILIP R. [Hon. Richard L. Fruin, Dept. 15] SHELDON, an individual, LAW 711  11 OFFICES OF ROBERT P. FINN, a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 6‐4 California sole proprietorship, and 2 0‐8 12 ROBERT P. FINN, an individual, 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; CA,90025  F31ACSIMILE  13 Plaintiffs, 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 v. 3. FRAUD; LOS 310‐8 15 THOMAS V. GIRARDI, an individual; 4. MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED; NE  GIRARDI & KEESE, a California law O PH 16 firm; ERIKA GIRARDI a/k/a ERIKA 5. ACCOUNTING; TELE JAYNE, an individual, EJ GLOBAL, 17 LLC, a California limited liability 6. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER; company, 1126 WILSHIRE 18 PARTNERSHIP, a California general 7. CONVERSION; partnership, GIRARDI FINANCIAL, 19 INC., a Nevada corporation, DAVID 8. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE; LIRA, an individual, ROBERT 20 FINNERTY, an individual, and DOES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. 1-100, inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

15

1 COME NOW PLAINTIFFS LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. SHELDON, APC, and 2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. FINN, and for their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 3 complain, aver, and allege as follows: 4 INTRODUCTION 5 1. Attorneys Philip Sheldon and Robert Finn referred thousands of cases to Tom 6 Girardi and his law firm Girardi & Keese (“GK”) pursuant to an agreement to share in the 7 attorneys’ fees paid when the cases settled. Plaintiffs are both seniors who devoted the 8 twilight years of their careers to working on these cases with the promise and expectation that 9 they would have the resources necessary to retire once Girardi paid them for the services they 10 performed. However, when the cases ultimately settled, Girardi concealed from Plaintiffs his 711  11 receipt of the settlement funds, lulled Plaintiffs into believing they would soon be paid, and 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 then refused to pay them. Instead of paying Plaintiffs, Girardi embezzled and redirected the 0025 31MILE  13 funds to family members, friends, partners, lenders, and creditors, and used the money to fund A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 outrageously lavish lifestyles for himself and his wife Erika Jayne, who is better known as one LOS 310‐8 15 of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. To avoid paying Plaintiffs the amounts owed, NE  O PH 16 Girardi and his firm “loaned” millions of dollars to Girardi’s wife, and then filed a sham TELE 17 “divorce” to fraudulently keep the money from Plaintiffs and other vulnerable victims. 18 2. The other defendants in this case, who are some of those individuals and 19 entities who received money, have not simply been passively receiving funds that could 20 plausibly be construed as valid repayments for loans or other obligations. Rather, with 21 Girardi’s and GK’s financial woes and years of fraudulent tactics in full view, these 22 individuals and entities knowingly conspired with Girardi and GK to redirect to themselves 23 monies received into the bank accounts of GK and embezzled by Girardi that they knew or 24 should have known belonged to Plaintiffs and other victims of Girardi’s fraud schemes. 25 3. With this action, Plaintiffs seek to recover the funds they are owed that were 26 embezzled and misappropriated by Defendants and seek to punish the Girardi defendants and 27 their co-conspirators for their fraudulent conduct and contemptible elder abuse of Plaintiffs. 28

16

1 THE PARTIES 2 4. Plaintiff Law Offices Philip R. Sheldon, APC (the “Sheldon Firm”) is, and at 3 all times relevant to this action was, a law firm and a California professional corporation with 4 its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles. 5 5. Plaintiff Philip R. Sheldon is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a 6 resident of the State of California. Sheldon is a solo practitioner and the sole owner of the 7 Sheldon Firm. (The Sheldon Firm and Mr. Sheldon are collectively referred to as the 8 “Sheldon Plaintiffs.”) 9 6. Plaintiff Law Offices of Robert P. Finn (the “Finn Firm”) is, and at all times 10 relevant to this action was, a law firm and a California sole proprietorship with its principal 711  11 place of business in the County of Los Angeles. 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 7. Plaintiff Robert P. Finn is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a resident 0025 31MILE  13 of the State of California. Finn is a solo practitioner and the sole owner of the Finn Firm. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 (The Finn Firm and Mr. Finn are collectively referred to as the “Finn Plaintiffs” and the LOS 310‐8 15 Sheldon Plaintiffs and the Finn Plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”). NE  O PH 16 8. Defendant Thomas V. Girardi (“Girardi”) is, and at all times relevant to this TELE 17 action was, a resident of the State of California. Girardi is, and at all times relevant to this 18 action was, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and is a principal and 19 owner of Defendant Girardi & Keese. 20 9. Defendant Girardi & Keese (“GK”) is, and at all times relevant to this action 21 was, a California law firm and general partnership with its principal place of business in the 22 County of Los Angeles. (Defendants Girardi and GK are collectively referred to as the 23 “Girardi Defendants”). 24 10. Defendant Erika Girardi, also known as Erika Jayne (“Defendant Jayne”), is, 25 and at all times relevant to this action was, a resident of the State of California. Jayne is the 26 wife of Defendant Girardi. On information and belief, Jayne has a legal and financial interest 27 in a community property interest in GK and the actions of her husband, taken for the benefit of 28

17

1 their marital community property. Jayne is also a principal owner of Defendants EJ Global, 2 LLC and Girardi Financial, Inc. 3 11. Defendant EJ Global, LLC is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a 4 California limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 1126 5 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017. 6 12. Defendant 1126 Wilshire Partnership is, and at all times relevant to this action 7 was, a California general partnership, with its principal place of business located at 1126 8 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017. Defendant 1126 Wilshire Partnership is 9 the owner of the real property commonly known as 1126 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 10 California 90017, Assessor’s Parcel Number 5143-022-012, with the legal description of: 711  11 6‐4 LOTS 48 AND 49 OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF LOT 1 IN 2 0‐8 12 BLOCK 37 OF HANCOCK’S SURVEY, LYING SOUTH OF ORANGE CA,90025  F31ACSIMILE  13 SLATOSR SPE EAERNT GM AEANLPDE R SW,E CECOSOTURENDRTELYDY O IFNFR BLOOOMOS W KA IN9L GPLAEIALGMEES 9S, 5TS RTOAEFE TMTEI, SOINCFE TCLHALELA ICNFIOETORYUN OSIAF , A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 RCEOCUONRTDYS. , EINX CTEHPET O TFHFEICREE FORFO TMH EA LCLO UONILT, YG ARSE,C MOIRNDEERRA OLSF ASANIDD LOS 310‐8 15 OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, WITHOUT NE  THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN INSTRUMENTS O PH 16 OF RECORDS. TELE 17 (the “1126 Wilshire Property”). 18 13. Defendant Girardi Financial, Inc. (“Girardi Financial”) is, and at all times 19 relevant to this action was, a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of business located at 20 1126 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017. The President of Girardi Financial 21 is Defendant Girardi, the Secretary is Defendant Jayne, and the Treasurer and Director is 22 Defendant Lira. 23 14. Defendant David Lira is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a 24 California resident. Lira was a partner at GK until in or about May 2020. Lira is also 25 Defendant Girardi’s son-in-law. 26 15. Defendant Robert Finnerty is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a 27 California resident. Finnerty was a partner at GK until in or about May 2020. 28

18

1 16. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued as DOES 1 through 100 2 are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this FAC to allege such names and capacities 3 as soon as they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 4 that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts or 5 omissions alleged in this FAC and that Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages were proximately 6 caused by the acts or omissions of these defendants. 7 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times 8 mentioned in this FAC, each of the defendants was the agent, co-conspirator, servant, joint 9 venturer, partner, employee and/or employer of each of the remaining defendants and was, in 10 doing the things complained of herein, acting within the scope of his/her/its agency, 711  11 conspiracy, joint venture, partnership or employment and acting also with the full knowledge 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 or subsequent ratification of his/her/its principals, co-conspirators, joint venturers, partners, 0025 31MILE  13 employees or employers. Alternatively, in doing the things complained of herein, each of the A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 defendants was acting alone and solely to further his/her/its own personal interests. LOS 310‐8 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE NE  O PH 16 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they maintain TELE 17 offices and/or regularly conduct business in the State of California, and/or reside in the State 18 of California. Additionally, Defendants entered into the relationships with Plaintiffs, entered 19 into the contracts that are the subject of this action, engaged in fraudulent acts in the State of 20 California, and/or conspired with other defendants in the State of California and the 21 contractual duties and obligations under the contracts were to be performed in the State of 22 California, including in Los Angeles County. 23 19. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil 24 Procedure section 395 because Defendants contracted to perform obligations in this district, 25 the contracts were also entered into in this district, and Defendants committed tortious acts in 26 this district. 27 28

19

1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2 The Girardi Defendants Scheme to Defraud Plaintiffs 3 20. In or about 2008 and 2009, Plaintiffs entered into written retainer agreements 4 with a substantial number of individuals who each retained Plaintiffs to represent them in 5 connection with claims arising from their or their loved one’s personal injuries sustained from 6 exposure to toxic chemicals emanating from several cement manufacturing facilities in 7 California; one facility in Riverside, California operated by Riverside Cement Holdings 8 Company, Texas Industries, Inc., TXI Riverside, Inc., TXI Cement Company, and TXI 9 California, Inc., and another facility operated in Colton, California by California Portland 10 Cement Company and CalPortland Company (collectively, the “TXI Cases”). Plaintiffs 711  11 referred all of the clients to the Girardi Defendants, and Plaintiffs and the Girardi Defendants 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 then jointly represented the clients in the TXI Cases and agreed to share the fees recovered. 0025 31MILE  13 Pursuant to their agreements with the Girardi Defendants, Plaintiffs were also entitled to be A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 reimbursed for all costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the prosecution of the TXI LOS 310‐8 15 Cases. In addition to initially retaining the clients, Plaintiffs also performed significant work NE  O PH 16 and provided services in connection with the prosecution of the TXI Cases TELE 17 21. The TXI Cases were ultimately resolved with a cash settlement, and the Girardi 18 Defendants received fees, a portion of which should have been held in trust for Plaintiffs in 19 addition to the amount owed Plaintiffs for costs. Rather than honoring their obligation under 20 the contract to pay Plaintiffs the fees plus costs due, the Girardi Defendants kept that money 21 for themselves, and on information and belief, funds that belong to Plaintiffs were paid to each 22 of the Defendants named in this FAC. 23 22. Since settling the TXI Cases, the Girardi Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs 24 any of the fees owed pursuant to the fee sharing agreements and have not reimbursed Plaintiffs 25 for their costs. The Girardi Defendants executed a scheme to keep Plaintiffs unaware that they 26 had received fees from the TXI Cases and prevented Plaintiffs from learning that the money 27 for fees and costs had been received by the Girardi Defendants. When Plaintiffs inquired, the 28 Girardi Defendants responded that the fees owed to Plaintiffs would not be received,

20

1 calculated or disbursed until liens claimed by the litigation administrator, KCC, were first 2 resolved. The Girardi Defendants then promised to make preliminary disbursements to 3 Plaintiffs, but after fabricating one reason or another to postpone the disbursements, 4 Defendants failed to fulfill those promises and have made no disbursements to Plaintiffs of any 5 kind and have provided no accounting of the amounts owed. Plaintiffs are informed and 6 believe that the Girardi Defendants took the attorneys’ fees from the settlement amount, 7 retained for themselves the fees and costs owed to Plaintiffs, and distributed portions of the 8 amounts owed to the other Defendants and/or paid debts and obligations of the other 9 Defendants with the funds. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that the Girardi 10 Defendants misallocated and misappropriated funds by unlawfully claiming entitlement to 711  11 reimbursement for purported costs that are either overstated, misstated, unlawful to claim as 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 costs and/or that were used for the personal expenditures of Defendants, and the Girardi 0025 31MILE  13 Defendants have refused to provide an accounting. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 The Girardi Defendants’ Lulling Efforts with Respect to the Sheldon Plaintiffs LOS 310‐8 15 23. In a September 19, 2018 letter to Mr. Sheldon, the Girardi Defendants affirmed NE  O PH 16 the fee sharing agreement, and assured Mr. Sheldon that payment would soon be made. In the TELE 17 letter, which contained the subject line “TXI Referrals,” Defendant Girardi wrote to Mr. 18 Sheldon: “My dear pal . . . I know you do not believe this but we are getting close.” The 19 Girardi Defendants did not make any payment to the Sheldon Plaintiffs and, on December 20, 20 2018, Defendant Girardi again wrote another letter to Mr. Sheldon with the subject line “TXI 21 Referrals,” stating: “My dear pal: I know you will never believe this, but we are getting much 22 closer. I hope to have a little something for you.” Again, despite these assurances, the Girardi 23 Defendants did not make any payment to the Sheldon Plaintiffs. 24 24. On February 7, 2019, Defendant Girardi wrote another letter to Mr. Sheldon in 25 which he falsely claimed that payment to the Sheldon Plaintiffs was delayed because “[t]hese 26 idiots from KCC are making outrageous claim[s] of million of dollars.” Defendant Girardi 27 claimed that he was “meeting with the Special Master to blow them out of the water.” Three 28 weeks later, Defendant Girardi sent Mr. Sheldon another letter with the subject line “TXI

21

1 Referrals” in which he again falsely claimed that the payment owed to the Sheldon Plaintiffs 2 was delayed because of claims being made by the litigation administrator, KCC. Defendant 3 Girardi wrote: “We are in an unbelievable fight with KCC. They are claiming $5 million. It is 4 total B.S., but we are attempting to set a hearing in front of the Special Master.” The Girardi 5 Defendants’ false claims were designed to lull the Sheldon Plaintiffs into believing payment 6 would be made once the issues involving KCC were resolved by the Special Master, but on 7 information and belief, Defendants were already in possession of the settlement funds and 8 were wrongfully withholding and misappropriating the funds, disbursing the funds to the other 9 Defendants and converting the funds. 10 25. On July 20, 2020, Defendant Girardi wrote a letter to Mr. Sheldon with the 711  11 subject line “Attorney Fees – TXI Riverside Cement Litigation” in which he again falsely 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 claimed that payment was not being made because of KCC’s unresolved claims. Defendant 0025 31MILE  13 Girardi stated: “I think I will have some very good news in about 30 days. Right now as you A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 know, everything is tied up by the fraudulent claims of KCC.” LOS 310‐8 15 26. On October 8, 2020, Defendant Girardi spoke to Mr. Sheldon by telephone and NE  O PH 16 promised: “I am going to send you a partial distribution tomorrow,” meaning October 9, 2020. TELE 17 Defendant Girardi also promised that he would provide Mr. Sheldon with a breakdown and 18 timeline regarding the TXI Cases’ final distribution. In reliance on Defendant Girardi’s 19 promises, Mr. Sheldon expended funds of his own that he otherwise would have delayed 20 expending. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Sheldon received a letter from Defendant Girardi, dated 21 October 13, 2020, but the letter did not contain any payment. Rather, the letter, which bore the 22 subject line “Attorney Fees Due for TXI Lawsuit” stated “We still have 150 issues on TXI. I 23 promise you I’ll be fair to you as soon as we can distribute.” 24 27. On October 21, 2020, Defendant Girardi sent another letter to Mr. Sheldon with 25 the subject line “Attorney Fees Due for TXI Lawsuit” in which Defendant Girardi falsely 26 stated: “We are down to 60 loopholes before we can distribute. I am attempting to get 27 authority for at least a partial distribution before the end of the month. I am also going to 28

22

1 make a loan to you out of my own pocket to hopefully tide you over.” The Girardi Defendants 2 did not make the promised distribution, and Girardi did not make the promised loan. 3 The Girardi Defendants’ Lulling Efforts with Respect to the Finn Plaintiffs 4 28. Defendant Lira expressly informed Mr. Finn that the amount of fees the Girardi 5 Defendants owed Mr. Finn for the TXI Cases was $3.94 million. However, after being 6 advised of this, the Girardi Defendants failed to make any payment to the Finn Plaintiffs. 7 29. In a March 18, 2020 letter to Mr. Finn, the Girardi Defendants affirmed the fee 8 sharing agreement and the Girardi Defendants promised to pay the Finn Plaintiffs the amounts 9 owed. Defendant Girardi claimed that he had only recently “found out the large number of 10 cases that you had sent, and the large amount of money you are entitled to.” Defendant 711  11 Girardi promised to soon “begin a partial settlement resolution,” however, he did not make any 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 payment to the Finn Plaintiffs. 0025 31MILE  13 30. On April 17, 2020, Defendant Girardi again affirmed by letter to Mr. Finn the A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 fee sharing agreement with the Finn Plaintiffs and promised to “get back” to Mr. Finn on April LOS 310‐8 15 22, with a report about “three meetings” he was scheduled to have with the settlement judge NE  O PH 16 for the TXI Cases. Defendant Girardi represented that the attorneys’ fees had not yet been TELE 17 disbursed and Defendant Girardi further promised to make an “advance” payment to Plaintiff 18 “out of [Defendant Girardi’s] own pocket.” Defendant Girardi then did not “get back” to 19 Plaintiff on April 22 or make the promised payment. 20 31. On May 14, 2020, Defendant Girardi sent Mr. Finn another letter in which he 21 again affirmed the fee sharing agreement and claimed, “I am trying desperately to get you 22 decent legal fee.” [sic]. Defendant Girardi further claimed that on May 22, 2020, he was 23 scheduled to have an “important meeting, that I think will solve everything.” Defendant 24 Girardi then sent Mr. Finn a letter on May 27, 2020, in which he indicated that the 25 disbursement of the fees owed would be forthcoming. Defendant Girardi stated, “Dear Mr. 26 Finn: You will end up loving me. With kind regards, Tom.” 27 32. The Girardi Defendants did not make any payment to Plaintiff, and on June 11, 28 2020, Defendant Girardi sent Mr. Finn a letter stating that the “fraud and deceit of KCC” was

23

1 delaying disbursement of the fees to the Finn Plaintiffs. Defendant Girardi claimed that the 2 Girardi Defendants would be filing a class action lawsuit against KCC, and that disbursement 3 of the fees would now be delayed for years until that lawsuit was resolved. Mr. Finn then 4 again asked Defendant Girardi to provide an accounting of the attorneys’ fees owed, but the 5 Girardi Defendants ignored the request and failed to provide an accounting. The Girardi 6 Defendants’ false claims were designed to lull the Finn Plaintiffs into believing payment 7 would be made once the issues involving KCC were resolved, but on information and belief, 8 the Girardi Defendants were already in possession of the settlement funds and were wrongfully 9 withholding and misappropriating the funds, disbursing the funds to the other Defendants, and 10 converting the funds. 711  11 The Girardi Defendants Fraudulently Transfer Plaintiffs’ Funds to Defendants. 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 33. For years, Defendant Girardi was aided and abetted in his schemes to defraud 0025 31MILE  13 by GK employees and partners such as Defendants Lira and Finnerty, who were intimately A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 involved in all of the Girardi Defendants’ affairs and were well aware that Girardi was LOS 310‐8 15 effectively operating a Ponzi scheme. When Defendants Lira and Finnerty received funds NE  O PH 16 conveyed by Defendants Girardi and GK, they received those funds with full knowledge that TELE 17 the funds they were receiving belonged to Plaintiffs or other creditors. 18 34. Similarly, Defendants Girardi and GK fraudulently transferred funds to 19 Defendant Jayne and her company Defendant EJ Global, LLC. On information and belief, 20 Defendant Girardi used GK to “loan” more than $20 million to EJ Global. Defendants Girardi 21 and Jayne then used those stolen funds to support their notoriously lavish lifestyles, which 22 have been chronicled on the reality series The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. On 23 information and belief, Defendants Girardi’s and Jayne’s divorce is a sham proceeding 24 designed to further their scheme to place assets outside the reach of creditors like Plaintiffs and 25 to convert the funds. 26 35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant 1126 Wilshire Partnership 27 and its partners received and misappropriated funds that belong to Plaintiffs, with knowledge 28 that the funds belong to and were owed to Plaintiffs and used those funds for the benefit of the

24

1 1126 Wilshire Property and the partners, including to pay debts and/or obligations incurred by 2 the partnership with respect to the property. Defendants Girardi and GK fraudulently 3 conveyed the funds to the partnership and its partners to place the funds outside the reach of 4 Plaintiffs and to allow the funds to be converted by the partnership and its partners. 5 36. Similarly, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Girardi Financial, Inc. and its 6 owners, directors, officers, and shareholders, received and misappropriated funds that belong 7 to Plaintiffs, with knowledge that the funds belong to and were owed to Plaintiffs and used 8 those funds for the benefit of Girardi Financial, Inc. and its owners, directors, officers, and 9 shareholders. Defendants Girardi and GK fraudulently conveyed the funds to Girardi 10 Financial, Inc. and its owners, directors, officers, and shareholders to place the funds outside 711  11 the reach of Plaintiffs and to allow the funds to be converted by the corporation and its owners, 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 directors, officers, and shareholders. 0025 31MILE  13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 (Breach of Contract – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) LOS 310‐8 15 37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every NE  O PH 16 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 36 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. TELE 17 38. Plaintiffs and the Girardi Defendants orally agreed to jointly represent clients in 18 the TXI Cases and share any fee recovery in addition to reimbursement to Plaintiffs of 19 Plaintiffs’ costs. The Girardi Defendants then repeatedly reaffirmed the agreement by 20 promising to pay the amounts due to Plaintiffs. The Sheldon Plaintiffs’ contract damages are 21 $900,000, and the Finn Plaintiffs’ contract damages are $3.94 million. 22 39. Plaintiffs performed as required by jointly representing, with the Girardi 23 Defendants, clients in the TXI Cases. Plaintiffs also incurred costs in connection with the 24 prosecution of the TXI Cases. 25 40. The Girardi Defendants have breached the fee sharing agreement and the 26 subsequent promises to pay amounts owed by refusing to pay Plaintiffs the portion of the 27 attorneys’ fees and the costs that Plaintiffs are entitled to receive in connection with the TXI 28 Cases.

25

1 41. As a direct and proximate result of the Girardi Defendants’ breach of the fee 2 sharing agreement and the subsequent promises to pay amounts owed, the Sheldon Plaintiffs 3 have been damaged in the amount of $900,000, plus interest at the legal rate, and the Finn 4 Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $3.94 million, plus interest at the legal rate. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 7 42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every 8 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 9 43. Plaintiffs and the Girardi Defendants had a fiduciary relationship that was 10 established when the parties orally agreed to jointly represent clients in the TXI Cases and 711  11 share any fee recovery. As a result of this fiduciary relationship, the Girardi Defendants had a 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 duty to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of Plaintiffs with respect to those matters 0025 31MILE  13 connected to the fiduciary relationship. The Girardi Defendants’ duty of good faith and duty A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 to disclose material facts required the Girardi Defendants to distribute attorneys’ fee recovered LOS 310‐8 15 from the TXI Cases to Plaintiffs. The Girardi Defendants further had a fiduciary duty not to NE  O PH 16 misstate the true amount of costs incurred by the Girardi Defendants, and not to TELE 17 misappropriate those settlement funds misallocated by the Girardi Defendants as costs. 18 44. The Girardi Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by not distributing to 19 Plaintiffs the amounts due Plaintiffs under the fee-sharing agreement and the subsequent 20 promises to pay the amounts owed. The Girardi Defendants further breached their fiduciary 21 duty to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of Plaintiffs by misallocating certain 22 settlement proceeds as costs and misappropriating those purported costs from Plaintiffs, and by 23 not disclosing the true amount of the costs incurred by the Girardi Defendants to Plaintiffs. 24 45. As a direct and proximate result of the Girardi Defendants’ breach of their 25 fiduciary duties, the Sheldon Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $900,000, plus 26 interest at the legal rate, and the Finn Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $3.94 27 million, plus interest at the legal rate. 28

26

1 46. In doing these acts, the Girardi Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, or 2 malice as defined by California Civil Code section 3294(c), and Plaintiffs are therefore also 3 entitled to punitive and/or exemplary damages in addition to the damages set forth above. 4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (Fraud – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 6 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every 7 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 8 48. The Girardi Defendants knowingly made false representations to Plaintiffs and 9 made promises without any intent to perform the promises when the Girardi Defendants 10 represented and promised to Plaintiffs that they would share any fee recovery with respect to 711  11 the TXI Cases referred to the Girardi Defendants by Plaintiffs. Then, after the TXI Cases were 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 settled, Defendants made additional promises to make payments to Plaintiffs that the Girardi 0025 31MILE  13 Defendants had no intention of keeping, as the promises were made for the purpose of lulling A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 Plaintiffs into believing Plaintiffs would be paid and stringing Plaintiffs along to enable the LOS 310‐8 15 Girardi Defendants to avoid making the payments owed to Plaintiffs and to fraudulently NE  O PH 16 transfer the funds to the other Defendants beyond the reach of Plaintiffs to enable Defendants TELE 17 to convert the funds. On information and belief, the Girardi Defendants also made 18 misrepresentations regarding the effect of the alleged lien claims by third party KCC. The 19 Girardi Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiffs that the attorneys’ fees for the TXI Cases 20 referred to the Girardi Defendants by Plaintiffs had not yet been disbursed to the Girardi 21 Defendants when, in fact, the Girardi Defendants had received the payments from the TXI 22 Cases referred by Plaintiff and had fraudulently transferred the funds to the other Defendants. 23 At the time of making the representations and promises, the Girardi Defendants had no 24 intention of paying Plaintiffs the amounts owed to Plaintiffs by the Girardi Defendants after 25 the Girardi Defendants had received attorney’s fees and costs for the TXI Cases referred to the 26 Girardi Defendants by Plaintiffs. 27 49. It was justifiable for Plaintiffs to rely on the Girardi Defendants’ 28 representations that they would share any fee recovery because Defendant Girardi is an

27

1 attorney and a member of the State Bar, and it was justifiable for Plaintiff to presume that the 2 Girardi Defendants would not breach the legal and ethical duties that they ultimately in fact 3 breached. 4 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraud, the Sheldon Plaintiffs 5 have been damaged in the amount of $900,000, plus interest at the legal rate, and the Finn 6 Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $3.94 million, plus interest at the legal rate. 7 51. In doing these acts, Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, or malice as 8 defined by California Civil Code section 3294(c), and Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to 9 punitive and/or exemplary damages in addition to the damages set forth above. 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 711  11 (Money Had And Received – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 52. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every 0025 31MILE  13 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 51 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 53. On information and belief, the Girardi Defendants have received money that LOS 310‐8 15 was intended to be held by the Girardi Defendants for the benefit of Plaintiffs. NE  O PH 16 54. The money that the Girardi Defendants received was not used for the benefit of TELE 17 Plaintiffs, and the Girardi Defendants have not given the money to Plaintiffs. 18 55. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the money that was received by 19 Defendants to which the Sheldon Plaintiffs and the Finn Plaintiffs are entitled, which is in the 20 amount of $900,000, plus interest at the legal rate, and $3.94 million, plus interest at the legal 21 rate, respectively. 22 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Accounting – Against All Defendants) 24 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every 25 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 26 57. Plaintiffs and the Girardi Defendants orally agreed to jointly represent clients in 27 the TXI Cases and share any fee recovery. A fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiffs 28

28

1 and the Girardi Defendants that required the Girardi Defendants to act with the utmost good 2 faith for the benefit of Plaintiffs with respect to the parties’ fee-sharing agreement. 3 58. The Girardi Defendants recovered fees paid in the TXI Cases pursuant to the 4 settlement agreements in those cases, and a portion of those attorneys’ fees are the rightful 5 property of Plaintiff under the fee-sharing agreement between Plaintiffs and the Girardi 6 Defendants. The Girardi Defendants transferred the fees owed to Plaintiffs to each of the 7 remaining Defendants. 8 59. The amount of money due from Defendants is unknown to Plaintiffs and cannot 9 be ascertained without an accounting of the settlement amounts received by the Girardi 10 Defendants and disbursed by the Girardi Defendants to the parties’ clients and the remaining 711  11 Defendants, the costs actually incurred by the Girardi Defendants in connection with the TXI 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 Cases, and the attorneys’ fees and costs reimbursements received by the Girardi Defendants in 0025 31MILE  13 connection with the TXI Cases, therefore making an accounting necessary. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION LOS 310‐8 15 (Fraudulent Transfer – Against All Defendants) NE  O PH 16 60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every TELE 17 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 59 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 18 61. The Sheldon Plaintiffs had a right to payment from the Girardi Defendants in 19 the amount of $900,000, plus interest at the legal rate, and the Finn Plaintiffs had a right to 20 payment from the Girardi Defendants in the amount of $3.94 million, plus interest at the legal 21 rate. 22 62. With the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud Plaintiffs’ receipt of the 23 amounts they are owed, and/or without receiving reasonably equivalent consideration in 24 exchange, the Girardi Defendants transferred the amounts owed to Plaintiffs to Defendants 25 Jayne, EJ Global, LLC and its owners, managers and/or members, 1126 Wilshire Partnership 26 and its partners, Girardi Financial, Inc. and its owners, directors, officers, and/or shareholders, 27 Lira, Finnerty, and each of the Doe Defendants. Each of the transferee Defendants actually 28 knew or should have known that they were receiving funds that belonged to Plaintiffs.

29

1 63. Plaintiffs were harmed by the fraudulent transfers in the amounts stated and 2 Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 3 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Conversion – Against All Defendants) 5 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every 6 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 7 65. The Sheldon Plaintiffs had a right to possess funds in the amount of $900,000, 8 plus interest at the legal rate, and the Finn Plaintiffs had a right to possess funds in the amount 9 of $3.94 million, plus interest at the legal rate. 10 66. Defendants substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ property by knowingly or 711  11 intentionally taking possession of Plaintiffs’ property, preventing Plaintiffs from having access 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 to the property, spending the funds, and refusing to return the funds after numerous demands 0025 31MILE  13 by Plaintiffs. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 67. On information and belief, Defendant 1126 Wilshire Partnership and its LOS 310‐8 15 partners converted Plaintiffs’ property by using the funds for the 1126 Wilshire Partnership’s NE  O PH 16 expenditures including expenditures for the 1126 Wilshire Property. TELE 17 68. Plaintiffs did not consent to the conversion and Defendants’ conduct was a 18 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Financial Elder Abuse – Individual Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn Against Defendants 21 Girardi, GK, Lira, Finnerty and Does 21-40) 22 69. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every 23 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 of this FAC as though set forth fully herein. 24 70. Defendants Girardi, GK, Lira, Finnerty and Does 21-40, and each of them, 25 took, hid, misappropriated, obtained, and/or retained Plaintiffs Sheldon’s and Finn’s property 26 with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn and/or assisted in taking, hiding, 27 misappropriating, obtaining, and/or retaining Plaintiffs Sheldon’s and Finn’s property with the 28

30

1 intent to defraud Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn, specifically $900,000 with respect to Mr. 2 Sheldon and $3.94 million with respect to Mr. Finn. 3 71. Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Finn were each older than 65 years of age at the time of 4 the conduct, and Defendants Girardi’s, GK’s, Lira’s, Finnerty’s and Does 21-40’s conduct was 5 a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs Sheldon’s and Finn’s harm. 6 72. In doing these acts, Defendants Girardi, GK, Lira, Finnerty and Does 21-40, 7 and each of them, acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, as defined by 8 California Civil Code section 3294(c), and Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn are therefore also 9 entitled to punitive and/or exemplary damages, and damages for pain and suffering as provided 10 in California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5. 711  11 73. Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn are also entitled to enhanced remedies, including 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 without limitation their attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided in California Welfare and 0025 31MILE  13 Institutions Code section 15657.5. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF LOS 310‐8 15 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as NE  O PH 16 follows: TELE 17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Breach of Contract – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 19 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and consequential 20 damages in the amount of $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn 21 Plaintiffs; 22 2. For specific performance of the agreement; 23 3. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 24 4. For an award of costs of suit; 25 5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 26 27 28

31

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 3 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and consequential 4 damages in the amount of $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn 5 Plaintiffs; 6 2. For punitive and exemplary damages; 7 3. For a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs; 8 4. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 9 5. For an award of costs of suit; 10 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 711  11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 (Fraud – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 0025 31MILE  13 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and consequential A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 damages in the amount of $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn LOS 310‐8 15 Plaintiffs; NE  O PH 16 2. For punitive and exemplary damages; TELE 17 3. For a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs; 18 4. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 19 5. For an award of costs of suit; 20 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Money Had And Received – Against the Girardi Defendants and Does 1-20) 23 1. For return of the money had and received by Defendants in the amount of 24 $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn Plaintiffs; 25 2. For a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs; 26 3. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 27 4. For an award of costs of suit; 28 5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

32

1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Accounting – Against the All Defendants) 3 1. For an accounting; 4 2. For an award of costs of suit; 5 3. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 6 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Fraudulent Transfer – Against All Defendants) 8 1. For an order that the fraudulent transfers be set aside and/or voided to the extent 9 necessary to satisfy the Sheldon Plaintiffs’ claims in the amount of $900,000, plus interest at 10 the legal rate, and the Finn Plaintiffs’ claims in the amount of $3.94 million, plus interest at the 711  11 legal rate; 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 2. For an order enjoining Defendant 1126 Wilshire Partnership from selling, 0025 31MILE  13 encumbering, or disposing of the real property commonly known as 1126 Wilshire Property, a A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 description of which is provided in paragraph 12 of this FAC; LOS 310‐8 15 3. For a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs; NE  O PH 16 4. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; TELE 17 5. For an award of costs of suit; 18 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 19 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Conversion – Against All Defendants) 21 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and consequential 22 damages in the amount of $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn 23 Plaintiffs; 24 2. For punitive and exemplary damages; 25 3. For a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs; 26 4. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 27 5. For an award of costs of suit; 28 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

33

1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Financial Elder Abuse – Individual Plaintiffs Sheldon and Finn Against Defendants 3 Girardi, GK, Lira, Finnerty and Does 21-40) 4 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and consequential 5 damages in the amount of $900,000 for the Sheldon Plaintiffs and $3.94 million for the Finn 6 Plaintiffs; 7 2. For punitive and exemplary damages; 8 3. For pain and suffering damages as provided in California Welfare and 9 Institutions Code section 15657.5; 10 4. For attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in California Welfare and Institutions 711  11 Code section 15657.5; 4 6‐ 2 0‐8 12 5. For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, according to law; 0025 31MILE  13 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. A,9  ACSI CF A.NGELES 26‐4700;  14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LOS 310‐8 15 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. NE  O TELEPH 16 Dated: December 16, 2020 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP 17 By: _________________________________ 18 James W. Spertus Ezra D. Landes 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34

35

1 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP 2 James W. Spertus (SBN 159825) Ezra D. Landes (SBN 253052) 3 1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705 Los Angeles, California 90025 4 Telephone: (310) 826-4700 Facsimile: (310) 826-4711 5 jim@spertuslaw.com ezra@spertuslaw.com 6 Ronald Richards, Esq. (SBN 176246) 7 Morani Stelmach, Esq. (SBN 296670) 8 THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C. 9 P. O. Box 11480 Beverly Hills, California 90213 10 Tel: (310) 556-1001 11 Fax: (310) 277-3325 Email: morani@ronaldrichards.com 12 Email: ron@ronaldrichards.com 13 Attorneys for PlaintiffS UPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES- CENTRAL DISTRICT 15 16 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. SHELDON, APC, a Case No.: 20STCV47160 17 California professional corporation, PHILIP R. [ Assigned for all purposes to Dept. “15”, HonSHELDON, an individual, LAW OFFICES OF RNiOchTaICrdE LO. FF rAuSinS,O JCuIdAgTe IpOrNes OidFin CgO.]U NSEL 18 ROBERT P. FINN, a California sole proprietorship, and ROBERT P. FINN, an 19 individual, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 vs. 22 THOMAS V. GIRARDI, an individual; GIRARDI & KEESE, a California law firm; ERIKA 23 GIRARDI a/k/a ERIKA JAYNE, an individual, EJ 24 GLOBAL, LLC, a California limited liability company, 1126 WILSHIRE PARTNERSHIP, a 25 California general partnership, GIRARDI FINANCIAL, INC., a Nevada corporation, 26 DAVID LIRA, an individual, ROBERT 27 FINNERTY, an individual, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

36

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT 3 Plaintiffs hereby associate in as counsel, Ronald 4 Richards, Morani Stelmach, of the Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C., P.O. Box5 11480, Beverly Hills, CA 90213; telephone (310) 556-1001, fax (310) 277-3325. 6 DATED: January 29, 2021 7 Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. 8 9 /s Ronald Richards 10 BAtyt:o__r_n_e_y__s_ f_o_r__ P__la__i_n_t_i_ff_s_______________ RONALD RICHARDS, Esq. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

37

EXHIBIT C

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

1 PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT 2 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 3 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1765 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071 5 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): Opposition Of Erika GirardTo Chapter 7 Trustee’s Application To Employ The Law Offices Of Ronald Richards & 6 Associates, A.P.C. As Special Litigation Counsel; Declaration of Peter J. Mastan in Support Thereof; Request For Hearing on Application will be served or was served (a) on the judge in 7 chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below 8 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the 9 court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On May 10, 2021, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are o10 the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: 11 Service information continued on attached page 12 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On , 2021, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known 13 addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed 14 as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. 15 Service information continued on attached page 16 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE 17 TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) May 10, 2021, I served the following persons 18 and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writinto such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge her19 constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. 20 Service information continued on attached page 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true an22 correct. 23 5/10/21 Katrice Ortiz /s/ Katrice Ortiz Date Printed Name Signature 24 25 26 27

64

In re GIRARDI KEESE 1 Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR U.S.B.C. Central District of California 2 Los Angeles Division 3 1. SERVED VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): 4 Kyra E Andrassy on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller 5 kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 6 Rafey Balabanian on behalf of Creditor Edelson PC 7 rbalabanian@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com 8 Michelle Balady on behalf of Creditor Bedford Law Group, APC mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com 9 William C Beall on behalf of Interested Party Mullen & Henzell, LLP 10 will@beallandburkhardt.com, carissa@beallandburkhardt.com 11 William C Beall on behalf of Interested Party Shane Horton will@beallandburkhardt.com, carissa@beallandburkhardt.com 12 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Jaime Ruigomez 13 Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFai14 Law.com 15 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Joseph Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, 16 Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaiLaw.com 17 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Kathleen Ruigomez 18 Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFai19 Law.com 20 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership 21 Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFai22 Law.com 23 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant Boris Treyzon Esq Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, 24 Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaiLaw.com 25 Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 26 Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFai27 Law.com

65

Richard D Buckley on behalf of Interested Party L.A. Arena Funding, LLC 1 richard.buckley@arentfox.com 2 Marie E Christiansen on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen- 3 4166@ecf.pacerpro.com 4 Jennifer Witherell Crastz on behalf of Creditor Wells Fargo Vendor Financial Services, Injcrastz@hrhlaw.com 5 Jennifer Witherell Crastz on behalf of Creditor Wells Fargo Vendor Financial Services, L 6 jcrastz@hrhlaw.com 7 Ashleigh A Danker on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, 8 SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 9 Clifford S Davidson on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-7586@ecf.pacerpro.com 10 Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 11 lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 12 Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller 13 lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 14 Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) 15 lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 16 Richard W Esterkin on behalf of Creditor Southern California Gas Company 17 richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com 18 Richard W Esterkin on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com 19 Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 20 tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 21 Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller 22 tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 23 Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) 24 tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 25 Jeremy Faith on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 26 Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaith27 w.com

66

James J Finsten on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 1 , jimfinsten@hotmail.com 2 Alan W Forsley on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.co 3 Eric D Goldberg on behalf of Creditor Stillwell Madison, LLC 4 eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com 5 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Attorney William F Savino agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 6 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Erika Saldana 7 agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 8 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Jill O'Callahan agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 9 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor John Abassian 10 agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 11 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Kimberly Archie agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 12 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Robert M. Keese 13 agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 14 Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Virginia Antonio agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 15 Suzanne C Grandt on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 16 suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov 17 Steven T Gubner on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law 18 Marshall J Hogan on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. 19 mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com 20 Sheryl K Ith on behalf of Creditor Daimler Trust sith@cookseylaw.com, sith@ecf.courtdrive.com 21 Razmig Izakelian on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC 22 razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com 23 Lewis R Landau on behalf of Creditor Virage SPV 1, LLC Lew@Landaunet.com 24 Lewis R Landau on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 25 Lew@Landaunet.com 26 Daniel A Lev on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com 27

67

elombard@zwickerpc.com, bknotices@zwickerpc.com 1 Craig G Margulies on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a 2 California limited liability partnership Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, 3 Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithw.com 4 Craig G Margulies on behalf of Defendant Boris Treyzon Esq 5 Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaith 6 w.com 7 Craig G Margulies on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, 8 Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithw.com 9 Peter J Mastan on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 10 peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 11 Edith R. Matthai on behalf of Defendant David Lira ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com 12 Edith R. Matthai on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 13 ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com 14 Kenneth Miller on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com 15 Elissa Miller (TR) 16 CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com 17 Eric A Mitnick on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 18 MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com 19 Scott H Olson on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson- 20 2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com 21 Leonard Pena on behalf of Interested Party Robert Girardi lpena@penalaw.com, penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com 22 Michael J Quinn on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC 23 mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com 24 David M Reeder on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 25 david@reederlaw.com, secretary@reederlaw.com 26 Ronald N Richards on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com 27

68

1 Kevin C Ronk on behalf of Creditor U.S. Legal Support, Inc. 2 Kevin@portilloronk.com, Attorneys@portilloronk.com 3 William F Savino on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. wsavino@woodsoviatt.com, lherald@woodsoviatt.com 4 Kenneth John Shaffer on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC 5 johnshaffer@quinnemanuel.com 6 Richard M Steingard on behalf of Other Professional Christopher Kamon , awong@steingardlaw.com 7 Philip E Strok on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF 8 pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 9 Philip E Strok on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) 10 pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 11 Boris Treyzon on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a Californ12 limited liability partnership jfinnerty@actslaw.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com 13 United States Trustee (LA) 14 ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov 15 Eric D Winston on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com 16 Christopher K.S. Wong on behalf of Interested Party L.A. Arena Funding, LLC 17 christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com 18 Timothy J Yoo on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF tjy@lnbyb.com 19 Timothy J Yoo on behalf of Interested Party Jason M. Rund 20 tjy@lnbyb.com 21 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: 22 N/A 23 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: 24 U.S. Bankruptcy Court Hon. Hon. Barry Russell 25 255 E. Temple Street, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90012 26 27

69