HTML Document View

Full title: Objection (related document(s): 437 Motion to Reconsider (related documents 392 Order on Application to Employ (BNC-PDF)) Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates APC as Special Litigation Counsel filed by Interested Party Erika Girardi) Declaration of Evan Borges Filed by Special Counsel Ronald Richards (Richards, Ronald) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

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

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

docket@edelson.com Michelle Balady on behalf of Creditor Bedford Law Group, APC mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Jaime Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Joseph Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Kathleen Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant Boris Treyzon Esq Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Evan C Borges on behalf of Interested Party Erika Girardi LLC jcrastz@hrhlaw.com Ashleigh A Danker on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com Clifford S Davidson on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II,richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com Richard W Esterkin on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Jeremy Faith on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com James J Finsten on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF , jimfinsten@hotmail.com Alan W Forsley on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.com Eric D Goldberg on behalf of Creditor Stillwell Madison, LLC eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Attorney William F Savino agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Erika Saldana agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Jill O'Callahan agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@noti

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 Robert Cooper (SBN 209641) robert.cooper@wilsonelser.com 2 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 3 555 S. Flower Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 Tel: (213) 443-5100 Fax: (213) 443-5101 5 Attorneys for Court-Appointed 6 Special Litigation Counsel Law Offices of Ronald Richards 7 & Associates, APC 8 Ronald Richards (SBN: 176246) 9 ron@ronaldrichards.com Morani Stelmach (SBN: 296670) 10 morani@ronaldrichards.com LAW OFFICES OF RONALD RICHARDS 11 & ASSOCIATES, APC P.O. Box 11480 12 Beverly Hills, California 90213 Tel: 310.556.1001 13 Fax: 310.277.3325 14 Special Litigation Counsel for Elissa D. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee 15 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 19 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 20 GIRARDI KEESE, Chapter 7 21 Debtor. CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION 22 OF EVAN C. BORGES AND EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 ATTACHED THERETO IN 23 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 24 Date: TBD 25 Time: TBD Ctrm.: TBD 26 [Filed Concurrently with Opposition to 27 Reconsideration Motion and Declarations of Ronald Richards, Erin Joyce and Bjorn

1

1 2 3 TO THE HONORABLE BARRY RUSSELL, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: 4 Elissa D. Miller, the chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") for the bankruptcy estate of 5 Girardi Keese, hereby submits the following objections to the Declaration of Evan C. 6 Borges (“Borges”) and Exhibits 1 and 2 attached thereto in support of Motion for 7 Reconsideration [Docket No. 437] filed by Erika Girardi to reconsider the appointment 8 order of the Law Offices of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C., as Special Litigation 9 Counsel. The Borges Declaration and Exhibits 1 and 2 attached thereto are 10 objectionable for several reasons, and should be disregarded in their entirety. 11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Ms. Girardi has selectively compiled various unauthenticated tweets and internet 13 postings while attributing them to Mr. Richards in violation of the rules governing 14 evidence. For example, the Declaration of Evan Borges fails to lay the proper foundation15 for any of the postings attached to Exhibit 1. There is no assertion that the declarant, Mr. 16 Borges, prepared the compilation himself. The declarant is not a Twitter user to the best 17 of counsel’s knowledge or an expert on Twitter extractions. Whoever provided Ms. 18 Girardi’s counsel with the misleading grouping of tweets selectively scoured a private 19 party’s account and cherry-picked hearsay materials to try to falsely contend some ethic20 rule was violated. Judging by the materials attached, different individuals attempted to 21 take different screen shots at different times and provided it to Ms. Girardi’s counsel, thu22 raising various evidentiary issues. Accordingly, Ms. Girardi’s motion lacks any admissibl23 evidence. See Wady v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 216 F.Supp.2d 1060, 24 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (excluding documents where proponent of the evidence “has no 25 personal knowledge of who maintains the website, who authored the documents, or the 26 accuracy of their contents”). 27

2

1 II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 2 A. The Attached Materials Are Not Authenticated. 3 Ms. Girardi’s counsel, as the declarant, cannot authenticate the contents of 4 Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to his declaration because he has not shown any personal 5 knowledge as to who posted any of the tweets found in those exhibits. There is also no 6 assertion that Ms. Girardi’s attorney has any knowledge as to how or when the tweets 7 and other posts were generated or compiled. There is no evidence that the compilations 8 are accurate or complete. There is also no suggestion that any of the postings belonged 9 to verified accounts. Ms. Girardi cannot cure these evidentiary gaps in her reply papers. 10 See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (“district court need not consider arguments 11 raised for the first time in a reply brief”). 12 Courts are very skeptical in general of Internet-based information. See, e.g., 13 United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that evidence taken 14 from the Internet lacked authentication where the proponent was unable to show that the15 information had been posted by the organizations to which she attributed it). Courts view16 information obtained from the Internet as inherently untrustworthy. (St. Clair v. Johnny's 17 Oyster & Shrimp, Inc. 76 F.Supp.2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (“Anyone can put anythin18 on the Internet”). Because “hackers can adulterate the content on any website from any 19 location at any time,” ibid., evidence procured from the Internet must be properly 20 authenticated. See United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125, 131-132 (2nd Cir. 2014) (no 21 evidence provided that defendant himself created Russian Facebook-style web page or 22 was responsible for its contents); see also United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403, 405, 23 408-415 (3rd Cir. 2016) (Facebook “chatroom” postings were not business records of 24 regularly conducted activity). “The rationale for the authentication requirement is that the 25 evidence is viewed as irrelevant unless the proponent of the evidence can show that the 26 evidence is what its proponent claims.” United States v. Meienberg, 263 F.3d 1177, 11827 (10th Cir. 2001) (analyzing admissibility of printouts of computerized records); see also

3

1 United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000) (analyzing admissibility of 2 exhibits reflecting chat room conversations). 3 The two exhibits attached to the declaration of Ms. Girardi’s counsel are not 4 authenticated. “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of 5 evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the 6 item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Here, however, the moving 7 papers are devoid of any declaration by Twitter account holders attesting to the contents8 of the attached tweets. There is also no declaration by Twitter’s custodian of records. Se9 Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929, 933 (7th Cir. 2014) (screenshots from internet 10 archive must be authenticated by testimony of witness with personal knowledge of how 11 internet archive works). 12 Exhibit 1 represents a series of partially-omitted, half conversations that were 13 scoured and selectively cherry picked to paint a distorted and misleading picture to act a14 an evidentiary backdrop to interfere with the Trustee’s choice of counsel. As such, the 15 “compilation” presented by Ms. Girardi is incomplete, reflecting overwhelming hearsay 16 conversations. Motion 10:18 (confirming the compilation represents copies of “certain 17 posts” about Ms. Girardi, thus rendering it incomplete). In fact, most of the attachments 18 are from unverified accounts, making it impossible to verify the identity of the speakers. 19 Because such materials have not been authenticated, they should be excluded. 20 While the supporting declaration attached to the motion seeks to describe the 21 contents of Exhibit 1, it merely states as follows: “Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a 22 compilation of tweets from Ronald Richards regarding this proceeding and individuals 23 involved in this proceeding from his Twitter account dating back to June 2, 2021.” 24 (Borges Decl., ¶ 2.) Ms. Girardi, however, failed to download the entire replies, response25 and strings of expandable conversations associated with the subject tweets. Supplying 26 incomplete statements to the Court to imply counsel mistreated Ms. Girardi is completely27 improper, unfair, and unreliable.

4

1 The lack of authentication is exacerbated by the hearsay nature of the attached 2 posts. The statements attributed to those communicating with Mr. Richards constitute 3 classic forms of hearsay. See Lemon v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 958 F.3d 417, 420 (6t4 Cir. 2020) (statements by unnamed speakers that turn on second-hand gossip are 5 inadmissible hearsay). This provides an independent ground for exclusion. 6 C. Exhibits 1 and 2 are Incomplete. 7 Most, if not all, of the materials presented in Exhibit 1 are generally referred to as 8 Tweets and Replies (TAR). This means only one person may have seen these 9 statements. Furthermore, if a party on the other end deletes their Tweet, which is very 10 common, portions of the other side of the conversation will be deleted. Moreover, if one 11 does not open up all the replies or expand the windows, many portions of a string of 12 conversations will not print. This inevitably yields an incomplete, misleading, and 13 inaccurate conversation. As a result, the attached TARs are unreliable pieces of 14 information. It would be impossible to retroactively figure out which part was deleted by 15 the other user or what part remained. 16 The following example illustrates how unfair and misleading the compilation is. 17 The exhibits presented by Ms. Girardi omit a post by Mr. Richards regarding Mr. Mastan: 18 19 Replying to @RonaldRichards 20 (Unknown poster) Not saying it applies here, but numerous cases 21 illustrate that it has become standard operating procedure for lawyers 22 to attempt/withdraw from cases after they commit error. 23 24 6:12 AM · Jun 16, 2021 · Twitter for Android 1 Like 25 26 Tweet your reply 27 Ronald Richards @RonaldRichards · Jun 16

5

1 Mastan is a good attorney. He didn't make any errors on this one. 2 3 While omitting the preceding post, the motion erroneously claims that Mr. Richard4 was hostile to Ms. Girardi’s counsel. In reality, however, Mr. Richards – having settled 5 other cases with Mr. Mastan – has been complimentary about Mr. Mastan, as evidenced6 by the underlined text in the preceding post. As another example, Mr. Mastan and Mr. 7 Richards consented to the appointment order, precluding any suggestion of hostility. 8 These omitted facts further illustrate that, in scouring the internet to make a false claim 9 about lack of civility, those in charge of compiling the tweets attached to Ms. Girardi’s 10 motion intentionally omitted this tweet. 11 SUMMARY 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee requests that the Court disregard the 13 Declaration of Evan Borges and Exhibits 1 and 2 in their entirety. The Borges 14 Declaration and the proffered evidence submitted with it are inadmissible under the 15 Federal Rules of Evidence, as set forth above and in the chart below. 16 17 Obj. # Statement: Objection: Ruling: 18 ¶ (pg.: 19 line) 20 #1. “Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701, [ ] 21 ¶2 22:9- compilation of tweets from Ronald 802 sustained 22 11 Richards regarding this proceeding There is neither 23 and individuals involved in this foundation nor personal [ ] 24 proceeding from his Twitter knowledge for overruled 25 account dating back to June 2, declarant’s assertions. 26 2021.” The statements and 27

6

1 exhibit 1 are 2 inadmissible hearsay. 3 #2. “As of today’s date, Mr. Richards’s Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701, [ ] 4 profile on his Twitter account, 802 sustained 5 ¶3 22:12- @RonaldRichards, now states that There is neither 6 13 he has over 16,000 followers.” foundation nor personal [ ] 7 knowledge for overruled 8 declarant’s assertions. 9 #3 “Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701, [ ] 10 ¶4 compilation of tweets from Scott 802 sustained 11 22:14-16 Hanson regarding this proceeding There is nothing to lay 12 and individuals involved in this the foundation for these [ ] 13 proceeding from his Twitter out of court statements. overruled 14 account dating back to June 13, There is no evidentiary 15 2021.” support and declarant 16 cannot testify as to 17 what a third party said 18 out of court. This is 19 inadmissible hearsay. 20 #4 “The YouTube Interview Fed. R. Evid. 402, 701, [ ] 21 ¶5 22:17- referenced in the tweet from Mr. 802 sustained 22 20 Richards dated June 16, 2021, There is nothing to lay 23 which is cited in the motion the foundation for these [ ] 24 accompanying this Declaration, out of court statements. overruled 25 appeared on a YouTube channel There is no evidentiary 26 called “Up and Adam!” with a URL support and declarant 27 link that can be accessed at: cannot testify as to

7

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v what a third party said 2 =SIFk3-hoVU8.” out of court. This is 3 inadmissible hearsay. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CONCLUSION 11 The materials challenged in these objections should be deemed inadmissible and 12 disregarded by the Court. 13 Dated: July 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 14 LAW OFFICES OF RONALD RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, APC 15 16 WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 17 18 By: /s/ Ronald Richards Ronald Richards 19 Robert Cooper 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

8

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: O Box 11480 everly Hills, CA 90213 true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): _________________________________________bjection and Response to Motion for Reconsideration ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ill be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in e 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) uly 16, 2021, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the llowing persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: X Service information continued on attached page . SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: n (date) _______________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcase or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, rst class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the dge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Service information continued on attached page . 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) June 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. Service information continued on attached page declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. July 7, 2021 Ronald Richards /s Ronald Richards Date Printed Name Signature

9

2:20-bk-21022-BR Notice will be electronically mailed to: Kyra E Andrassy on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Kyra E Andrassy on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Rafey Balabanian on behalf of Creditor Edelson PC rbalabanian@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com Michelle Balady on behalf of Creditor Bedford Law Group, APC mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Jaime Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Joseph Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Creditor Kathleen Ruigomez Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Defendant Boris Treyzon Esq Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Ori S Blumenfeld on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithLaw.com Evan C Borges on behalf of Interested Party Erika Girardi eborges@ggtriallaw.com, cwinsten@ggtriallaw.com

10

Richard D Buckley on behalf of Interested Party L.A. Arena Funding, LLC richard.buckley@arentfox.com Marie E Christiansen on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen-4166@ecf.pacerpro.com Jennifer Witherell Crastz on behalf of Creditor Wells Fargo Vendor Financial Services, Inc. jcrastz@hrhlaw.com Jennifer Witherell Crastz on behalf of Creditor Wells Fargo Vendor Financial Services, LLC jcrastz@hrhlaw.com Ashleigh A Danker on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com Clifford S Davidson on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-7586@ecf.pacerpro.com Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Lei Lei Wang Ekvall on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Richard W Esterkin on behalf of Creditor Southern California Gas Company richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com Richard W Esterkin on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller tevanston@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Timothy W Evanston on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) tevanston@swelawfirm.com,

11

gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Jeremy Faith on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com James J Finsten on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF , jimfinsten@hotmail.com Alan W Forsley on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.com Eric D Goldberg on behalf of Creditor Stillwell Madison, LLC eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Attorney William F Savino agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Erika Saldana agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Jill O'Callahan agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor John Abassian agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Kimberly Archie agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Robert M. Keese agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Andrew Goodman on behalf of Petitioning Creditor Virginia Antonio agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com Suzanne C Grandt on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov Steven T Gubner on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law Marshall J Hogan on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com

12

Sheryl K Ith on behalf of Creditor Daimler Trust sith@cookseylaw.com, sith@ecf.courtdrive.com Razmig Izakelian on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com Lillian Jordan on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ENOTICES@DONLINRECANO.COM, RMAPA@DONLINRECANO.COM Lewis R Landau on behalf of Creditor Virage SPV 1, LLC Lew@Landaunet.com Lewis R Landau on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Lew@Landaunet.com Daniel A Lev on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com Elizabeth A Lombard on behalf of Creditor American Express National Bank c/o Zwicker & Associates, P.C. elombard@zwickerpc.com, bknotices@zwickerpc.com Craig G Margulies on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com Craig G Margulies on behalf of Defendant Boris Treyzon Esq Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com Craig G Margulies on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com Peter J Mastan on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com Edith R. Matthai on behalf of Defendant David Lira ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com Edith R. Matthai on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com

13

Kenneth Miller on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com Eric A Mitnick on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com Scott H Olson on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson- 2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com Carmela Pagay on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ctp@lnbyb.com Leonard Pena on behalf of Interested Party Robert Girardi lpena@penalaw.com, penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com Michael J Quinn on behalf of Creditor KCC Class Action Services, LLC mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com David M Reeder on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF david@reederlaw.com, secretary@reederlaw.com Ronald N Richards on behalf of Creditor Law Offices of Phili Sheldon APC ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com Ronald N Richards on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com Ronald N Richards on behalf of Plaintiff Elissa Miller ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com Ronald N Richards on behalf of Plaintiff Robert P Finn ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com Ronald N Richards on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com Kevin C Ronk on behalf of Creditor U.S. Legal Support, Inc. Kevin@portilloronk.com, Attorneys@portilloronk.com

14

Frank X Ruggier on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF frank@ruggierlaw.com, enotice@pricelawgroup.com William F Savino on behalf of Creditor California Attorney Lending II, Inc. wsavino@woodsoviatt.com, lherald@woodsoviatt.com Kenneth John Shaffer on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC johnshaffer@quinnemanuel.com Richard M Steingard on behalf of Other Professional Christopher Kamon , awong@steingardlaw.com Philip E Strok on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Philip E Strok on behalf of Trustee Elissa Miller (TR) pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com Boris Treyzon on behalf of Defendant ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership bt@treyzon.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com Boris Treyzon on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF bt@treyzon.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov Eric D Winston on behalf of Creditor Frantz Law Group, APLC ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com Christopher K.S. Wong on behalf of Interested Party L.A. Arena Funding, LLC christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com Timothy J Yoo on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF tjy@lnbyb.com Timothy J Yoo on behalf of Interested Party Jason M. Rund tjy@lnbyb.com

15