HTML Document View

Full title: Statement of Issues on Appeal Filed by Interested Party Erika Girardi (RE: related document(s)632 Notice of Appeal and Statement of Election (Official Form 417A)). (Borges, Evan) (Entered: 09/08/2021)

Document posted on Sep 7, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 10 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

No. 437) (the “Motion for 11 Reconsideration”), even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order 12 revealed that Ronald N. Richards, the principal of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. (“Mr. 13 Richards”), made prejudicial and disparaging public statements about Ms. Girardi related to his 14 investigation and the Trustee’s alleged claims against her, in violation of California Business and 15 Professions Code § 6068 and Rule 3.6 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct? Did the Bankruptcy Court err by denying Ms. Girardi’s Motion for Reconsideratio17 even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order revealed that Mr. 18 Richards made undisputed public statements on social media and in interviews that disparaged 19 Ms. Girardi and her integrity and caused prejudice to her, including in connection with the 20 adversary proceeding filed by Mr. Richards and the Trustee against Ms. Girardi on July 14, 2021?Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to issue a narrow and constitutionally 5 appropriate gag order in light of, among other evidence presented with the Motion for 6 Reconsideration and Ms. Girardi’s Reply papers, Mr. Richards’s undisputed extra-judicial 7 statements disparaging Ms. Girardi’s credibility and integrity, Mr. Richards’s public and direct 8 engagement with Ms. Girardi (a represented party) on social media about the merits of the pendin9 adversary complaint against her, and Mr. Richards’s statement in his declaration filed with his 10 opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration that he would not refrain from his extra-judicial 11 statements absent an order from the Court?Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to consider, address, or give weight to the 28 fact that, following entry of the Employment Order, Mr. Richards continued unabated in his extra 1 judicial disparaging statements about Ms. Girardi, including in social media posts and interviews 2 on YouTube and podcasts and by making reference to his new role as Special Litigation Counsel 3 to the Trustee? Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to find that Mr. Richards’s failure to 9 disclose in his Employment Application his subsequently-admitted extensive participation in the 10 Hulu documentary about Girardi Keese, Mr. Girardi, and Ms. Girardi, “The Housewife and the 11 Hustler” (which the Court characterized as a “YouTube video”)—which included one of the 12 petitioning creditors in the bankruptcy case and conveyed a negative judgment toward Ms. 13 Girardi—violated Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure?

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 EVAN C. BORGES, State Bar No. 128706 EBorges@GGTrialLaw.com 2 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 3 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (949) 383-2800 4 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801 5 Attorneys for Party-in-Interest and Appellant Erika Girardi 6 7 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 11 In re CACB Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 12 GIRARDI KEESE, Chapter 7 13 Debtor. CACD Case No. 2:21-cv-06951-SVW 14 APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY 15 COURT 16 Judge: Hon. Barry Russell 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

1 On August 25, 2021, Party-in-Interest and Appellant Erika Girardi (“Ms. Girardi”) filed a 2 Notice of Appeal from the Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion for 3 Reconsideration, entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of 4 California in the above-captioned case on August 11, 2021 (Docket Nos. 571 and 572). In 5 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(2)(B), Ms. Girardi hereby designates 6 the following issues for consideration on appeal. 7 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL 8 1. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by denying Ms. Girardi’s Motion for Reconsideratio9 of the Order Granting Chapter 7 Trustee’s Application to Employ the Law Offices of Ronald 10 Richards & Associates, APC as Special Litigation Counsel (Dkt. No. 437) (the “Motion for 11 Reconsideration”), even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order 12 revealed that Ronald N. Richards, the principal of Ronald Richards & Associates, A.P.C. (“Mr. 13 Richards”), made prejudicial and disparaging public statements about Ms. Girardi related to his 14 investigation and the Trustee’s alleged claims against her, in violation of California Business and 15 Professions Code § 6068 and Rule 3.6 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct? 16 2. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by denying Ms. Girardi’s Motion for Reconsideratio17 even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order revealed that Mr. 18 Richards made undisputed public statements on social media and in interviews that disparaged 19 Ms. Girardi and her integrity and caused prejudice to her, including in connection with the 20 adversary proceeding filed by Mr. Richards and the Trustee against Ms. Girardi on July 14, 2021? 21 3. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by denying Ms. Girardi’s Motion for Reconsideratio22 even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order revealed that Mr. 23 Richards failed to comply with his disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 24 Procedure 2014, by omitting his material connections to parties in interest based on his 25 subsequently admitted extensive participation in the Hulu documentary about Girardi Keese, Mr. 26 Girardi, and Ms. Girardi, “The Housewife and the Hustler,” released on June 12, 2021? 27 4. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by denying Ms. Girardi’s Motion for Reconsideratio28 even though new evidence discovered after entry of the Employment Order revealed that Mr.

2

1 Richards violated Rule 4.2 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging directly 2 with Ms. Girardi, a represented party, on social media regarding the merits of the pending 3 adversary complaint against her? 4 5. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to issue a narrow and constitutionally 5 appropriate gag order in light of, among other evidence presented with the Motion for 6 Reconsideration and Ms. Girardi’s Reply papers, Mr. Richards’s undisputed extra-judicial 7 statements disparaging Ms. Girardi’s credibility and integrity, Mr. Richards’s public and direct 8 engagement with Ms. Girardi (a represented party) on social media about the merits of the pendin9 adversary complaint against her, and Mr. Richards’s statement in his declaration filed with his 10 opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration that he would not refrain from his extra-judicial 11 statements absent an order from the Court? 12 6. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by finding that Mr. Richards had no conflicts of 13 interest that would preclude his representation of the Chapter 7 Trustee as her Special Litigation 14 Counsel? 15 7. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by concluding that “Mr. Richards’ conduct failed to 16 constitute any ethical violations that would disqualify him from representing the trustee as her 17 special litigation counsel”? 18 8. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to consider or address the actual substance19 of Mr. Richards’s social media posts and extra-judicial statements about Ms. Girardi? 20 9. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to address at all or give weight to the fact 21 that as a matter of law, Mr. Richards, as counsel to a bankruptcy trustee, was an extension of the 22 trustee and held to the same highest of fiduciary standards? 23 10. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to consider, address, or give weight to the 24 fact that Mr. Richards also abused his position as Special Litigation Counsel to the Trustee by 25 publicly threatening with investigation individuals who appeared supportive of Ms. Girardi and 26 may be potential witnesses? 27 11. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to consider, address, or give weight to the 28 fact that, following entry of the Employment Order, Mr. Richards continued unabated in his extra

3

1 judicial disparaging statements about Ms. Girardi, including in social media posts and interviews 2 on YouTube and podcasts and by making reference to his new role as Special Litigation Counsel 3 to the Trustee? 4 12. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by relying on and giving significant weight to the 5 legally inaccurate and argumentative “expert” Declaration of Erin Joyce in opposition to the 6 Motion for Reconsideration (“Joyce Declaration”), which purported to supplant the Court’s role 7 by opining on ultimate legal issues that were the province of the Court to decide? 8 13. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to find that Mr. Richards’s failure to 9 disclose in his Employment Application his subsequently-admitted extensive participation in the 10 Hulu documentary about Girardi Keese, Mr. Girardi, and Ms. Girardi, “The Housewife and the 11 Hustler” (which the Court characterized as a “YouTube video”)—which included one of the 12 petitioning creditors in the bankruptcy case and conveyed a negative judgment toward Ms. 13 Girardi—violated Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure? 14 14. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by relying on and giving weight to Mr. Richards’s 15 statement that “The Housewife and the Hustler” documentary did not air until after entry of the 16 Employment Order and that his participation was minimal, even though Mr. Richards complained17 on social media on June 3, 2021—prior to entry of the Employment Order—that it was “unfair” 18 that he was cut from the show because his “16 hours of footage with expert analysis” could not be19 replaced? 20 15. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by failing to give weight to the fact that Ms. Girardi, 21 as a defendant in an adversary proceeding for fraudulent conveyance, has a right to a jury trial and22 that Mr. Richards’s disparaging statements about her on social media and in interviews, including23 his practice of ending his tweets about her with “#girardifraud,” only serve to prejudice any 24 potential jury pool, which would result in depriving Ms. Girardi of her right to a fair trial? 25 16. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by finding that Ms. Girardi’s legal argument that Mr. 26 Richards’s barrage of social media postings and public statements (and evidence regarding the 27 same) would prejudice any potential jury pool lacked “any basis in fact or law as a ground for 28 reconsideration” and was somehow improperly raised in the Motion for Reconsideration?

4

1 17. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by sustaining evidentiary objections to the 2 Declaration of Evan C. Borges and Exhibits 1 and 2 Attached Thereto submitted in support of the 3 Motion for Reconsideration? 4 18. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by sustaining evidentiary objections to the 5 Declaration of Evan C. Borges and Exhibit 3 Attached Thereto submitted in support of the Reply 6 Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration? 7 19. Did the Bankruptcy Court err by overruling evidentiary objections to the Joyce 8 Declaration? 9 Ms. Girardi reserves the right to modify, restate, and/or supplement the foregoing issues to10 the fullest extent permitted by law. 11 DATED: September 8, 2021 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 12 13 By: 14 Evan C. Borges Attorneys for Party-in-Interest and Appellant Erik 15 Girardi 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5

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: 3 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OFISSUES ON APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT will be served or was served (a) on the judge 6 in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 7 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 court via NEF and 8 hyperlink to the document. On September 8, 2021, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy caseor adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List t9 receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: 10 Service information continued on attached page 11 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: 12 On September 8, 2021, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope 13 in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the 14 document is filed. 15 Service information continued on attached page 16 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL 17 (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (dateSeptember 8, 2021, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail 18 service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight 19 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 and correct. 22 September 8, 2021 Cheryl Winsten 23 Date Printed Name Signature 24 25 26 27 28

6

1 In re GIRARDI KEESE CACB Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 2 CACD Case No. 2:21-cv-06951-SVW 3 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: 4 The following is the list of parties who are currently on the list to receive email notice/service forthis case. 5  Kyra E Andrassy kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, 6 lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 7  Rafey Balabanian rbalabanian@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com 8  Michelle Balady mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com 9  Ori S Blumenfeld ori@marguliesfaithlaw.com, 10 Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaihLaw.com 11  Evan C Borges eborges@ggtriallaw.com, cwinsten@ggtriallaw.com 12  Richard D Buckley richard.buckley@arentfox.com 13  Marie E Christiansen mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, 14 ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen-4166@ecf.pacerpro.com 15  Jennifer Witherell Crastz jcrastz@hrhlaw.com 16  Ashleigh A Danker Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 17  Clifford S Davidson csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-18 7586@ecf.pacerpro.com 19  Lei Lei Wang Ekvall lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 20  Richard W Esterkin richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com 21  Timothy W Evanston tevanston@swelawfirm.com, 22 gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 23  Jeremy Faith Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaith24 aw.com 25  James J Finsten , jimfinsten@hotmail.com 26  Alan W Forsley alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-27 lawyers.net,addy.flores@flpllp.com 28  Eric D Goldberg eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com

7

1  Andrew Goodman agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 2  Suzanne C Grandt suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov 3  Steven T Gubner sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law 4  Marshall J Hogan mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com 5  Sheryl K Ith sith@cookseylaw.com, sith@ecf.courtdrive.com 6  Razmig Izakelian razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com 7  Lillian Jordan ENOTICES@DONLINRECANO.COM, 8 RMAPA@DONLINRECANO.COM 9  Lewis R Landau Lew@Landaunet.com 10  Daniel A Lev dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com 11  Elizabeth A Lombard elombard@zwickerpc.com, bknotices@zwickerpc.com 12  Craig G Margulies Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, 13 Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithaw.com 14  Ron Maroko ron.maroko@usdoj.gov 15  Peter J Mastan peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, 16 SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 17  Edith R. Matthai ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com 18  Kenneth Miller kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com 19  Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, 20 MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com 21  Eric A Mitnick MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com 22  Scott H Olson solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson-2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com 23  Carmela Pagay ctp@lnbyb.com 24  Leonard Pena lpena@penalaw.com, 25 penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com 26  Michael J Quinn mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com 27  David M Reeder david@reederlaw.com, secretary@reederlaw.com 28

8

1  Ronald N Richards ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com 2  Kevin C Ronk Kevin@portilloronk.com, Attorneys@portilloronk.com 3  Frank X Ruggier frank@ruggierlaw.com, enotice@pricelawgroup.com 4  William F Savino wsavino@woodsoviatt.com, lherald@woodsoviatt.com 5  Kenneth John Shaffer johnshaffer@quinnemanuel.com 6  Richard M Steingard , awong@steingardlaw.com 7  Philip E Strok pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 8  Boris Treyzon bt@treyzon.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com 9  United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov 10  Eric D Winston ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com 11  Christopher K.S. Wong christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com 12  Timothy J Yoo tjy@lnbyb.com 13 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: 14 Debtor: 15 Girardi Keese 1126 Wilshire Blvd 16 Los Angeles, CA 90017 17 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership (ACTS) 16001 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 18 Encino, CA 91436 19 Donlin, Recano & Company 20 6201 15th Ave Brooklyn, NY 11219 21 IDiscovery Solutions 22 535 Anton Blvd Ste 850 23 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 24 James W Spertus Spertus Landes & Umhoffer LLP 25 1990 South Bundy Dr Ste 705 26 Los Angeles, CA 90025 27 28

9

1 Neil Steiner Steiner & Libo, Professional Corp 2 11845 W. Olympic Blvd Ste 910W Los Angeles, CA 90064 3 Boris Treyzon Esq 4 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 5 Encino, CA 91436 6 Andrew W Zepeda Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin 7 1875 Century Park East Ste 2100 8 Los Angeles, CA 90067 9 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: 10 U.S. Bankruptcy Court: 11 U.S. Bankruptcy Court Hon. Barry Russell 12 255 E. Temple Street, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90012 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10