Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1-16 Filed 09/04/18

Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1

1 Daniel J. Weintraub, State Bar No. 132111

James R. Selth, State Bar No. 123420
2 Nina Z. Javan, State Bar No. 271392
WEINTRAUB & SELTH, APC
3 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170
Los Angeles, CA 90025
4 Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
5 jim@wsrlaw.net
6 Attorneys for Judgment Creditor,
Jason Frank Law, PLC
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Case No. 8:18-mc-00027

In re
12
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, JUDGMENT CREDITOR JASON
13 FRANK LAW, PLC’S MOTION TO SET
Debtor. HEARING DATE ON JUDGMENT
14 DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER;
15 DECLARATION OF JASON M. FRANK
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
16
Date: TBD
17 Time: TBD
Place: TBD
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
1 MOTION TO SET HEARING DATE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S

2 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
3
Judgment Creditor Jason Frank Law, PLC (“JFL”) hereby moves and
4
requests a hearing date be set on the Motion for Protective Order filed by Judgment
5
Debtor Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“EA”). The purpose of this Motion is to get a judge
6
assigned to hear this matter so that JFL can enforce a pending Subpoena to Produce
7
Documents and Order to Appear for a Judgment Debtor Examination served on EA
8
in July 2018. To date, EA has refused to produce any records required for the
9
Judgment Debtor Examination, including bank records. The relevant procedural
10
history necessitating this motion is set forth below.
11
1. On May 22, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
12
District of California, the Honorable Judge Catherine A. Bauer presiding (the
13
“Bankruptcy Court”), entered a judgment in favor of JFL against EA in the amount
14
of $10 Million (“Judgment”). [Declaration of Jason M. Frank (“Frank Decl.”), Exh.
15
A.]
16
2. The Judgment was entered due to EA’s breach of a structured
17
settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court as a condition to granting EA’s
18
request to dismiss its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the “Order Approving
19
Settlement and Dismissing Case”).1 [Frank Decl., Exh. B.]
20
3. EA is a law firm based in Newport Beach, California that primarily
21
represents clients on a contingency fee basis. [Frank Decl., ¶ 4.] The managing
22
partner of EA is Michael Avenatti (“Avenatti”). [Id.]
23
4. A Writ of Execution was issued against EA by the Bankruptcy Court
24
on June 6, 2018. [Frank Decl., Exh. C.]
25
//
26
27 1
While the Bankruptcy Court dismissed EA’s bankruptcy case on March 15, 2018, the
Bankruptcy Court retained post-dismissal jurisdiction to enter the Judgment pursuant to the terms
28 of the structured settlement. [Frank Decl., Exh. B, ¶ 10.]
-2-
1 5. On June 22, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order to Appear for
2 Exami-nation of Judgment Debtor (“ORAP”) to Avenatti set for July 25, 2018.
3 [Frank Decl., Exh. D.] A Subpoena to Produce Documents (“Subpoena”) was
4 issued by JFL’s attorney on June 23, 2018. [Id., Exh. G.] The ORAP and
5 Subpoena for EA’s records were personally served on Avenatti on July 9, 2018.
6 [Id., Exh. H.]
7 6. A copy of the Report of Judgment Creditor re Efforts to Meet and
8 Confer re Motion for a Protective Order filed on August 3, 2018 – which sets forth
9 agreements JFL has made to narrow the requests (without prejudice) is attached to
10 the Frank Decl. as Exhibit L.
11 7. On July 9, 2018, EA filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to
12 quash the Subpoena. [Frank Decl., Exh. I.] EA set the motion for hearing on
13 August 8, 2018 – nearly two weeks after the scheduled ORAP. [Id.]
14 8. On July 25, 2018, Avenatti appeared for the ORAP without any
15 records (other than EA’s publicly filed Bankruptcy Schedules). [Frank Decl., ¶ 15.]
16 The Judgment Debtor Examination went forward for several hours, with a
17 continuation of the examination to be scheduled at the hearing on EA’s Motion for
18 Protective Order scheduled for August 8, 2018, which hearing was continued by
19 stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2018. [Id.]
20 9. At the August 27, 2018 hearing on EA’s Motion for Protective Order,
21 the Bankruptcy Court indicated these issues would be better suited outside of a
22 bankruptcy venue and before a court with more experience in the enforcement of
23 judgments. Consequently, on August 30, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court issued its
24 Notice of Intent to Abstain from any further proceedings in the dismissed
25 bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305(a). [Frank Decl., Exh. E.] The
26 Bankruptcy Court found that “the interests of creditors and the Debtor would be
27 better served if the Court abstains” because “[t]he structured settlement in this case,
28 which resulted in dismissal, consensually altered the parties’ positions in ways that
-3-
1 make it untenable to continue in bankruptcy court” and “[t]he parties have other
2 better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to them for resolution of their
3 ongoing issues.” [Id.]
4 10. On September 4, 2018, JFL registered the Judgment before this
5 District Court so that JFL would have a forum to enforce the Judgment and to
6 enforce the Subpoena and ORAP. [Frank Decl., Exh. F.]
7 11. To date, EA has still not produced any records in response to the
8 Subpoena, nor has EA paid any portion of the Judgment. [Frank Decl., ¶ 18.]
9 12. Accordingly, JFL requests the Court set a hearing date as soon as
10 practicable on EA’s Motion for Protective Order so that EA can no longer avoid its
11 production obligations under the Subpoena.
12 13. A copy of EA’s Motion for Protective Order filed on July 9, 2018 is
13 attached to the Frank Decl. as Exhibit I.
14 14. A copy of JFL’s Oppostion to EA’s Motion for Protective Order filed
15 on July 25, 2018 is attached to the Frank Decl. as Exhibit J.
16 15. A copy of EA’s Reply in support of the Motion for Protective Order
17 filed on August 1, 2018 is attached to the Frank Decl. as Exhibit K.
18 16. For the Court’s background, is attached to the Frank Decl. as Exhibit
19 M is an additional Bankruptcy Court Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
20 Amended Motion for Assignment and Restraining Order entered on July 11, 2018.
21 Pursuant to this Order, the Bankruptcy Court restrained EA from “assigning,
22 encumbering or in any way transferring any proceeds, attorney’s fees, costs, rights
23 to payments and accounts receivable it is or may be entitled to receive from the
24 lawsuits and clients listed on Exhibit A” to the motion (the “Cases”). [Frank Decl.,
25 Exh. M, ¶ 2.] The order further required EA to file with the court and serve JFL
26 and other creditors “notice of receipt of any monies in relation to the Cases,
27 regardless of whether the payment is made to Debtor [EA], Avenatti & Associates,
28
-4-
1 Michael Avenatti, or Michael Eagan, or any entity controlled by Debtor [EA],

2 Avenatti & Associates, Michael Avenatti, or Michael Eagan.” [Id.]
3 For the foregoing reasons, JFL respectfully requests this Court set a hearing
4 date on EA’s Motion for Protective Order so JFL may obtain the subpoenaed
5 documents, proceed with the Judgment Debtor Examination and enforcement of its
6 Judgment.
7
Dated: September 11, 2018 WEINTRAUB & SELTH, APC
8
9 __________________________________By /s/ James R. Selth____________

Daniel J. Weintraub
10 James R. Selth
Attorneys for Judgment Creditor
11 Jason Frank Law, PLC
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

2 I, Jason M. Frank, declare as follows:
3 1. I am the owner and president of the Judgment Creditor, Jason Frank
4 Law, PLC (“JFL”). I am admitted to practice law before all federal and state courts
5 in the State of California, and I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of
6 California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, unless stated on
7 information and belief, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently
8 testify thereto.
9 2. I have been a member in good standing of the State Bar of California
10 since 1997. I received my J.D. degree from the University of Michigan in 1997,
11 and my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1994. I was formerly a
12 litigation partner at Paul Hastings Janosfky & Walker LLP. From February 2009
13 through May 20, 2016, I was an attorney at Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“EA”), either as
14 an employee or through a contract between JFL and EA. I am currently a partner
15 and founder of Frank Sims & Stolper LLP.
16 3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Final Judgment
17 Against Eagan Avenatti, LLP and in favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC. in the
18 Amount of Ten Million Dollars and No Cents (“Judgment”).
19 4. EA is a law firm based in Newport Beach, California that primarily
20 represents clients in contingency matters. The managing partner of EA is Michael
21 Avenatti (“Avenatti”).
22 5. JFL is my professional law corporation. From November 1, 2013
23 through May 20, 2016, I worked at EA pursuant to an independent contractor
24 agreement between JFL and EA. Under the agreement, EA was required to pay
25 JFL various forms of compensation, including 25% of the firm’s annual profits,
26 20% of the fees collected from clients I brought to the firm and 10% of the fees
27 collected pursuant to a class action settlement in which the firm was awarded $23.5
28 Million in fees and costs (the “Eden Settlement”).
-6-
1 6. EA failed to pay the amounts owed under the JFL contract.

2 Accordingly, JFL filed a demand for arbitration which was scheduled to go forward
3 on March 13, 2017. On the eve of the arbitration, on March 10, 2017, EA
4 consented to be placed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Florida, thereby preventing
5 the arbitration from going forward.
6 7. EA’s bankruptcy case was ultimately transferred to the United States
7 Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, before the Honorable
8 Catherine A. Bauer (the “Bankruptcy Court”). During the bankruptcy proceedings,
9 EA entered into a structured settlement with JFL and other creditors as a condition
10 to having the bankruptcy case dismissed, so EA would no longer be under
11 bankruptcy court supervision.
12 8. On May 15, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court approved the structured
13 settlement and dismissed EA’s bankruptcy case, retaining post-dismissal
14 jurisdiction. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting Motion Approving
15 Settlement and Dismissing Case and Related Relief (the “Structured Settlement and
16 Dismissal Order”) is attached as Exhibit B.
17 9. After the dismissal, EA failed to pay the amounts owed to JFL under
18 the Settlement. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Structured Settlement and
19 Dismissal Order, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final judgment against EA in the
20 amount of $10 million. [Exhibit A.]
21 10. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Writ of
22 Execution issued against EA by the Bankruptcy Court on June 6, 2018.
23 11. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Order to
24 Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor (“ORAP”) entered on June 22, 2018.
25 Pursuant to the ORAP, Avenatti was required to appear for the Judgment Debtor
26 Examination on July 25, 2018.
27 //
28 //
-7-
1 12. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena to

2 appear and produce documents (“Subpoena”) at the ORAP issued to Avenatti by
3 JFL’s attorney on June 23, 2018.
4 13. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Proof of
5 Service filed with the Bankruptcy Court on July 11, 2018 reflecting that Avenatti
6 was personally served with the ORAP and Subpoena on July 9, 2018.
7 14. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Report of
8 Judgment Creditor re Efforts to Meet and Confer re Motion for a Protective Order
9 filed by JFL on August 3, 2018, which sets forth JFL’s current agreement to narrow
10 the scope of the subpoena without prejudice to later seeking such records.
11 15. Attached as Exhibit I is the Motion for Protective Order seeking to
12 quash the Subpoena filed by EA on July 9, 2018. EA set the motion for hearing on
13 August 8, 2018 – nearly two weeks after the scheduled ORAP and date for
14 production of documents.
15 16. On July 25, 2018, Avenatti appeared for the ORAP without any
16 records (other than EA’s publicly filed Bankruptcy Schedules). The Judgment
17 Debtor Examination went forward for several hours, with a continuation of the
18 examination to be scheduled at the hearing on EA’s Motion for Protective Order
19 scheduled for August 8, 2018, which hearing was continued by stipulation of the
20 parties to August 27, 2018.
21 17. At the hearing on EA’s Motion for Protective Order on August 27,
22 2018, the Bankruptcy Court indicated it intended to abstain from hearing any
23 further matters relating to the enforcement of the Judgment and structured
24 settlement against EA. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the
25 Bankruptcy Court’s Notice of Intent to Abstain filed on August 30, 2018.
26 //
27 //
28 //
-8-
Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 6-1 Filed 09/11/18 Page 1 of 95 Page ID #:24
EXHIBIT "A" 10
Case
Case8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB DocDocument
445 Filed6-1
05/22/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
05/22/18
2 of15:58:26
95 Page ID
Desc
#:25
Main Document Page 1 of 2
1 Sara L. Chenetz, SBN 206936

SChenetz@perkinscoie.com
2 Amir Gamliel, SBN 268121
AGamliel@perkinscoie.com FILED & ENTERED
3 Perkins Coie LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 MAY 22 2018
Tel: 310-788-9900
5 Fax: 310-788-3399 CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
Central District of California
6 Attorneys for Jason Frank Law, PLC BY mccall DEPUTY CLERK
8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA DIVISION
10
11 In re Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB

12 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Chapter 11
13 Debtor. FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST EAGAN
AVENATTI, LLP AND IN FAVOR OF
14 JASON FRANK LAW, PLC, IN THE
AMOUNT OF TEN MILLION DOLLARS
15 AND NO CENTS
16
17
18 This Court, having entered its Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Eagan
19 Avenatti, LLP, and in Favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC in the Amount of Ten Million Dollars and No
20 Cents, on May 22, 2018 as Docket #444,
21 //
22 //
23 //
24
25
26
27
28
11
-1-
EXH A
Case
445 Filed6-1
05/22/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
05/22/18
3 of15:58:26
95 Page ID
Desc
#:26
1 IT IS ORDERED:
2 (1) Judgment is issued and entered in the amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS AND NO
3 CENTS in favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC, and against Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
4 (2) This Judgment is final and not appealable pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Settlement
5 Agreement.
6 (3) In accordance with Section 23 of the Settlement Agreement, Jason Frank Law, PLC
7 shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in collecting
8 any and all sums due from Eagan Avenatti, LLP pursuant to the entered judgment.
9
10 ###
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Date: May 22, 2018
25
26
27
28
12
-2-
EXH A
EXHIBIT "B" 13
Case
412 Filed6-1
03/15/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
03/15/18
5 of17:47:35
95 Page ID
Desc
#:28
1 Richard M. Pachulski, SBN 90073

Ira D. Kharasch, SBN 109084
2 Robert M. Saunders, SBN 226172
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP FILED & ENTERED
3 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 13th Floor
4 Tel: 310-277-6910 MAR 15 2018
Fax: 310-201-0760
5 rpachulski@pszjlaw.com
ikharasch@pszjlaw.com CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
6 rsaunders@pszjlaw.com BY mccall DEPUTY CLERK
7 Attorneys for Debtor and Debtor in Possession
10
11 In re: Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION

Debtor. APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
14 DISMISSING CASE AND RELATED
RELIEF
15
Hearing:
16 Date: February 28, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
17 Courtroom: 5D
Address: 411 West Fourth Street
18 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4393
19 A hearing was held on February 28, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Catherine E.
20 Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 5D
21 located at 411 West Fourth St., Santa Ana, CA, on Debtor’s Motion Approving Settlement and
22 Dismissing Case filed January 30, 2018 as Docket #343 (“Motion”). Capitalized terms which are
23 not defined in this Order shall have the same meanings as provided to such terms in the Motion.
24 Appearances were made as noted on the record.
25 A declaration from SulmeyerKupetz, APC (“Sulmeyer Declaration”) was filed March 15,
26 2018 as Docket #408, stating that it has received into its trust account the Initial Payment (as defined
27 in IRS Payment Stipulation at Docket #341), and the allowed amounts of the fees and expenses of
28 Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP and Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP. A declaration from Dinsmore &
14
1
EXH B
Case
412 Filed6-1
03/15/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
03/15/18
6 of17:47:35
95 Page ID
Desc
#:29
1 Shohl, LLP (together with the Sulmeyer Declaration, “Declarations”) was filed March 15, 2018 as
2 Docket #409, stating that it has received the Debtor’s California confessions of judgment for certain
3 identified claims (“Identified Claims”).
4 The Court having read and considered the Motion and pleadings filed in support of the
5 Motion, heard the statements of counsel at the Hearing, considered and overruled the opposition of
6 unsecured creditor Stoll Nussbaum & Polakov, read and considered the Declarations, and with good
7 cause shown:
8 IT IS ORDERED:
9 1. Except as otherwise set forth in this order, the Motion is granted, the JFL Settlement
10 is approved, the Debtor is authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement and
11 effectuate the Settlement Agreement, and the Case is dismissed.
12 2. SulmeyerKupetz, APC is authorized and directed to pay from its client trust account
13 the Initial Payment to the United States on or before the tenth calendar day following the entry of
14 this order pursuant to the terms set forth in the IRS Payment Stipulation at Docket #341, regardless
15 of whether there is a stay pending appeal.
17 the allowed fees and costs of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones and Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, on the
18 tenth calendar day after this order is entered, except if there is a stay pending appeal.
19 4. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP is authorized to release each confession of judgment at the
20 request from a holder of an Identified Claim per the below.
21 5. Claim 8-1, filed in this case by Jason Frank Law PLC, is allowed in the amount of
22 $10,000,000.00 (“Compromised Claim Amount”), and additionally to the extent such claim asserts a
23 claim for indemnification, contribution, and insurance coverage brought against JFL related to the
24 performance of services at Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
25 6. If Jason Frank Law, PLC timely and fully receives the Settlement Payments set forth
26 in paragraph 3.2 of the Settlement Agreement, the Compromised Claim Amount will be deemed
27 satisfied in full on the date set forth in paragraph 3.5 of the Settlement Agreement.
28 //
15
EXH B2
Case
412 Filed6-1
03/15/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
03/15/18
7 of17:47:35
95 Page ID
Desc
#:30
1 7. Claims 6-1, 7-1 and 9-1 are each allowed only to the extent such claims assert a claim
2 for indemnification, contribution and insurance coverage for any claims brought against Jason M.
3 Frank, Scott Sims or Andrew Stolper related to the performance of services at Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
4 8. Holders of Identified Claims shall be paid the liquidated, non-contingent prepetition
5 amount set forth in their proofs of claim, or as set forth in the Debtor’s Schedules if no proof of
6 claim was filed prior to the filing of the Motion. Such amounts shall be paid in nine equal monthly
7 installments, without interest, beginning 91 days after the date of entry of this order. If the Debtor
8 fails to timely remit any installment, then the Debtor shall have ten days after written notice is
9 mailed by the holder to the Debtor to cure such payment default. If the payment default is not timely
10 cured, then the holder, without further notice to the Debtor, may accelerate the balance due and
11 submit to the Superior Court of the State of California the confession of judgment provided by the
12 Debtor to Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP prior to the entry of this order. Any postpetition portion of an
13 Identified Claim shall be paid in the Debtor’s ordinary course of business. Disputed claims, which
14 are general unsecured claims that are not Identified Claims or ride-through claims (as identified in
15 the Motion), shall be entitled to pursue all remedies available under applicable non-bankruptcy law
16 on entry of this order.
17 9. Any and all claims of ZB, N.A. d/b/a California Bank & Trust that remain
18 outstanding as of the dismissal of the Case shall ride-through the dismissal of the Case unimpaired,
19 with all legal, equitable and contractual rights, including any related security interests, unaltered, and
20 shall be enforceable against the Debtor on and after the dismissal of the Case. The Debtor reserves
21 all legal, equitable and contractual defenses, including offset and recoupment rights to such claims.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25
26
27
28
16
EXH B3
Case
412 Filed6-1
03/15/18
Filed 09/11/18
Entered Page
03/15/18
8 of17:47:35
95 Page ID
Desc
#:31
1 10. The Court retains post-dismissal jurisdiction pursuant to LBR 1017-2(f) and as set
2 forth in the Motion.
3 ###
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Date: March 15, 2018
25
26
27
28
17
EXH B 4
EXHIBIT "C" 18
19
EXH C
20
EXH C
21
EXH C
EXHIBIT "D" 22
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
477 Filed
6-106/21/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
06/22/18
14 of15:49:42
95 Page Desc
ID #:37
23
EXH D
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
477 Filed
6-106/21/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
06/22/18
15 of15:49:42
95 Page Desc
ID #:38
24
EXH D
EXHIBIT "E" 25
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
554 Filed
6-108/30/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/30/18
17 of13:51:33
95 Page Desc
ID #:40
2 FILED & ENTERED

3
AUG 30 2018
4
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
5 Central District of California
BY le DEPUTY CLERK
6
10
13 Debtor. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ABSTAIN
14 Date: September 24, 2018

Time: 10:00 a.m.
15 Courtroom: 5D
Address: 411 W. 4th St,
16 Santa Ana, CA 92701
17
18 Notice is given pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure § 2002(f)(2) that the
19 Court intends to abstain from any further proceedings in this dismissed bankruptcy case
1
20 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).
21 //
22 //
23 //
24
25
26
27
1
28 The Court also gave notice of its intention to abstain at hearings held on August 27, 2018.
26
EXH E
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
554 Filed
6-108/30/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/30/18
18 of13:51:33
95 Page Desc
ID #:41
1 The Court believes that the interests of creditors and the Debtor would be better served
2 if the Court abstains. The structured settlement in this case, which resulted in dismissal,
3 consensually altered the parties’ positions in ways that make it untenable to continue in
4 bankruptcy court. The parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to
5 them for resolution of their ongoing issues.
6 ###
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date: August 30, 2018
24
25
26
27
28 27
EXH E
EXHIBIT "F" 28
Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
Case 8:18-mc-00027 Document
Document1 6-1
FiledFiled
09/04/18
09/11/18
Page
Page
1 of 20
3 of
Page
95 ID
Page
#:1 ID #:43
29
EXH F
Document1 6-1
FiledFiled
09/04/18
09/11/18
Page
Page
2 of 21
3 of
Page
95 ID
Page
#:2 ID #:44
30
EXH F
Document1 6-1
FiledFiled
09/04/18
09/11/18
Page
Page
3 of 22
3 of
Page
95 ID
Page
#:3 ID #:45
31
EXH F
EXHIBIT "G" 32
33
EXH G
The documents described below are to be produced by Judgment

Debtor pursuant to this Subpoena.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A), made

applicable in bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 9016, if Judgment Debtor objects to the production of
any document on the ground of the attorney-client privilege, work
product doctrine or any other privilege or doctrine, Judgment
Debtor is required to prepare and provide a privilege log that
identifies each document for which the privilege or doctrine is
claimed and which gives the following information:
a) The name(s) of the writes, sender or initiator of each

copy of the document;
b) The name(s) of the recipient, addressee, or party to whom
any copy of the document was sent;
c) The date of each copy of the document, if any, or an
estimate of its date;
d) A non-privileged description of the contents of the
document;
e) A statement of the basis for the claim of privilege.
DOCUMENTS
Any and all documents of any nature evidencing the existence

of any assets in which Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“EA”) claims a legal
or beneficial interest, including but not limited to the
following:
1. All bank statements for all accounts in the name of EA, or in

the name of any business owned by or affiliated with EA, from
January 1, 2013 to the present, including copies of all
deposits, and all cancelled checks or withdrawals in excess
of $1,000.00. This includes, but is not limited to any IOLTA
or client trust accounts opened and/or maintained by EA.
2. All financial statements prepared by EA or on its behalf,

from January 1, 2013 to the present.
3. All documents relating to the lease of the property at 520

Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
including all lease agreements, amendments thereto, and
personal or corporate guaranties.
EXH G
34
EXHIBIT "A" - PAGE 1
4. All documents concerning the ownership and management of EA,

including all partnership agreements and amendments thereto.
5. All documents relating to or evidencing all assets owned by

EA, including but not limited to, interests in real estate,
personal property, intellectual property, accounts
receivable, and general intangibles.
6. All documents relating to or evidencing all current

liabilities of EA.
7. All insurance policies for EA, or any business owned by or

affiliated with EA, including any endorsements or riders
attached thereto, from January 1, 2013 to the present.
8. Complete federal and state income tax returns filed for EA

for the 2103, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax years, including
all attachments and K-1 Schedules.
9. All profit and loss statements prepared for EA for 2013,

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
10. All balance sheets prepared for EA for 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017 and 2018.
11. A list of all EA clients from January 1, 2014 to the present.
12. A list of all currently pending lawsuits in which EA

represents one or more parties.
13. A list of all currently pending lawsuits in which EA formerly

represented one or more parties.
14. Any and all retainer agreements with clients from 2014 to the
present.
15. Any and all fee sharing agreements between EA and any third
party.
16. Any and all agreements in which EA is entitled to any fees or

compensation.
17. Any and all rent or sublease agreements in which EA is

entitled to rent payments.
18. Any and all loan agreements between EA and any third party.
EXH G
35
19. Any and all agreements in which EA is a third-party

beneficiary.
20. Any and all financing agreements between EA and any third
party.
21. Documents evidencing all payments over $1,000.00 from January

1, 2013 to the present made by EA to Michael Avenatti, or any
business or entity which Michael Avenatti owns or controls in
whole or in part, including but not limited to Avenatti &
Associates, APC.

1, 2013 to the present made by EA to Michael Eagan, or any
business or entity Michael Eagan owns or controls in whole or
in part, including but not limited to the Law Offices of
Michael Q. Eagan.
23. All agreements between EA and Avenatti & Associates, APC,

including but not limited to loan agreements, financing
agreements, fee sharing agreements, employment agreements and
any other agreements of any kind.
24. All retainer agreements in which Avenatti & Associates, APC

or Michael Avenatti are listed as counsel, including but not
limited to agreements with Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy
Daniels) and Kathryn Novak.
25. All documents and communications concerning or relating to

the assignment by EA of any claims or rights to attorneys’
fees from January 1, 2013 to the present.
26. All documents and communications from January 1, 2013 to the

present concerning or relating to claims or rights to
attorneys’ fees held by EA, or any business owned by EA.
27. All documents concerning or relating to any transfer over

$1,000.00 to or from EA from January 1, 2013 to the present.
28. Any and all checks to “Cash” from an EA bank account from
January 1, 2013 to the present, and documents which indicate
the recipient of the cash payment.
29. Any and all withdrawals from an EA bank account from January
1, 2013 to the present, and documents which indicate the
recipient of the withdrawals.
EXH G
36
30. All agreements with Gerald Tobin.

Gerald Tobin, including but not limited to e-mails, notes,
letters, memoranda and text messages.
32. All agreements with the X-Law Group and/or Filippo Marchino.

the judgment in favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC against EA,
including but not limited to e-mails, notes, letters,
memoranda and text messages.
34. All correspondence to or from any EA e-mail account to Phil

Baker or Baker Keener Nahra LLP concerning a company named
Maseco.
35. All agreements with any business owned or controlled, in

whole or in part, by Michael Avenatti.
36. EA’s QuickBooks account records reflecting all payments made

by EA in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
37. EA’s payroll records for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017 and 2018.
EXH G
37
( Case
B2550 (Form 25508:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
– Subpoena
p to Appear Document
pp and Testifyy at a Hearing 6-1 p Filed
y Case or09/11/18
g or Trial in a Bankruptcy Adversary Page
y Proceeding) 29
g 2)of
g) ((Page ) 95 Page ID #:52
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any): ______________________________________________
on (date) __________ .
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: ____________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________ on (date) ___________________ ; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the
witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ _______________________ .
My fees are $ _________ for travel and $_________ for services, for a total of $_________ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct.
Date: _______________
________________________________________________
Server’s signature
________________________________________________
Printed name and title
________________________________________________
Server’s address
Additional information concerning attempted service, etc.:
38
EXH G
( Case
B2550 (Form 25508:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
– Subpoena
pp and Testifyy at a Hearing 6-1 p Filed
y Case or09/11/18
g or Trial in a Bankruptcy Adversary Page
y Proceeding) 30
g 3)of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)
(c) Place of compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably
expense. compensated.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or
things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
or regularly transacts business in person; and procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected. information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.
documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of
business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or
the demand.
attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person
Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing
subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is
electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in
required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction —
a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably
which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a
usable form or forms.
party or attorney who fails to comply.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
information in more than one form.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of
from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition,
of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
hearing, or trial.
order, the person responding must show that the information is not
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or
requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to
26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed
the following rules apply:
information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party
trial-preparation material must:
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
(i) expressly make the claim; and
order compelling production or inspection.
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications,
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the
or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from
privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
significant expense resulting from compliance.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where
received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits
until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
specified in Rule 45(c);
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district
exception or waiver applies; or
where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a
is resolved.
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on
…
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required – and
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research,
also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court – may hold in contempt
development, or commercial information; or
a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey
the subpoena or an order related to it.
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)
39
EXH G
EXHIBIT "H" 40
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
500 Filed
6-107/11/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/11/18
32 of16:06:52
95 Page Desc
ID #:55
1 Sara L.Chenetz - SBN 206936

Amir Gamliel - SBN 268121
2 PERKINS COIE LLP
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 788-9900
4 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399
Schenetz@perkinscoie.com
5
Daniel J. Weintraub - SBN 132111
6 James R. Selth - SBN 123420
8 Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
9 jim@wsrlaw.net

JASON FRANK LAW, PLC
11
13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA ANA DIVISION
14
15 In re ) Chapter 11
)
16 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, ) Bankruptcy No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
)
17 Debtor. ) PROOF OF SERVICE OF:
)
18 ) 1) ORDER TO APPEAR FOR
) EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR
19 ) RE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
)
20 ) 2) SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AND
) TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN
21 ) A BANKRUPTCY CASE (OR ADVERSARY
) PROCEEDING)
22 )
) Date: July 25, 2018
23 ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
) Courtroom: 5D
24
25
26
27
28 41
EXH H
1
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
500 Filed
6-107/11/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/11/18
33 of16:06:52
95 Page Desc
ID #:56
42
EXH H
EXHIBIT "I" 43
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
35 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:58
1 RAINES FELDMAN LLP

Miles J. Feldman (State Bar No. 173383)
2 Robert M. Shore (State Bar No. 166018)
Hamid R. Rafatjoo (State Bar No. 181564)
3 1800 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor
4 Telephone: 310.440.4100
Facsimile: 310.691.1367
5 E-mail: mfeldman@raineslaw.com
rshore@raineslaw.com
6 hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com
7 Attorneys for Former Debtor

Eagan Avenatti, LLP
8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA ANA DIVISION
10
In re: Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
11
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Chapter 11
12
Debtor. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF
13 EAGAN AVENATTI LLP FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM
14
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
15 DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL J.
AVENATTI AND GERALD TOBIN IN
16 SUPPORT THEREOF
17 Date: August 8, 2018

Time: 10:00 a.m.
18 Place: Courtroom 5D
19 411 West Fourth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593
20
Judge: The Hon. Catherine E. Bauer
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44
EXH I
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
36 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:59
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 8, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
3 the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 5D of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
4 District of California, Santa Ana Division, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana,
5 California, Former Debtor Eagan Avenatti, LLP, will and hereby does move the Court for a
6 Protective Order quashing the subpoena duces tecum issued to Michael J. Avenatti (“Avenatti”) in
7 whole or in part and relieving Avenatti of any obligation to comply with the subpoena (the
8 “Motion”).
9 Good cause exists to grant the requested relief. As an initial matter, the request for
10 documents is startlingly overbroad and unduly burdensome. It requests documents stretching back
11 for six years, all the way to 2013. Many of the requested documents have no conceivable
12 connection to the Former Debtor’s assets. Moreover, because the underlying claim of Judgment
13 Creditor Jason Frank Law (“JFL”) is grounded entirely in state law, the state law of privilege
14 governs this action. Judgment Creditor is seeking a number of documents that fall squarely within
15 the discovery privileges recognized by California law, which provides the rule of privilege in this
16 action. In addition, the California courts treat the state’s privacy provisions, including California’s
17 consumer notice and employee notice statutes, as privileges. Under California law, consumers
18 (including the Former Debtor’s clients) and employees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to
19 be heard before their personal records may be produced in civil discovery. JFL is seeking both
20 consumer records and employee records, but it has not provided any notice at all to the Former
21 Debtor’s clients or employees). Accordingly, its subpoena must be quashed until it gives those
22 notices. That is a second independent basis for quashing the subpoenas.
23 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-
24 1(f), any opposition to the Motion must be filed with the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy
25 Court and served upon the United States Trustee, and Former Debtors’s counsel at the address set
26 forth in the upper left-hand corner of the first page of this Notice of Motion, by no later than
27 fourteen (14) days before the hearing on the Motion.
28
45
EXH I
-1-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
37 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:60
1 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the failure to file and serve a timely response
2 to the Motion may be deemed by the Court to be consent to the granting of the relief requested in
3 the Motion.
4 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached Memorandum of
5 Points and Authorities and Declarations of Michael J. Avenatti and Gerald Tobin; all pleadings
6 and papers on file in this action, all matters of which the Court may take judicial notice; and such
7 further evidence and argument as the Court may consider at the hearing of this Motion.
8 WHEREFORE, the Former Debtor respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion;
9 and (i) issue a Protective Order quashing the subpoena duces tecum issued to Michael J. Avenatti;
10 and (ii) grant the Former Debtor such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
11 proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
12 Dated: July 9, 2018 RAINES FELDMAN LLP
13
14 By: /s/ Hamid R. Rafatjoo

Hamid R. Rafatjoo
Eagan Avenatti LLP
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
46
EXH I
-2-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
38 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:61
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 JFL’s subpoena is improper because it violates California privilege law that is designed to
4 protect the privacy of third parties. JFL’s judgment is based entirely on state law. Therefore, the
5 state law of privilege governs claims of privilege. Here, JFL’s subpoena seeks both consumer
6 records and employee records as defined by California law. Before such records may be
7 produced, the affected consumers and employees must receive formal notice of the request and an
8 opportunity to object. JFL has not complied with these basic requirements of California law, so its
9 subpoena should be quashed in its entirety.
10 Turning to the details of the subpoena, first and most simply the request for documents is
11 remarkably overbroad and burdensome. Although the purpose of this process is to enable JFL to
12 collect its judgment from the Former Debtor’s current assets, the subpoena reaches back six years
13 into the past, seeking documents from as far back as 2013. Moreover, many of the document
14 requests obviously have nothing to do with the Former Debtor’s assets, because by their terms
15 they are limited to the Former Debtor’s liabilities.
16 In addition, JFL’s subpoena seeks documents that invade the attorney-client privilege of
17 the Former Debtor’s clients. Most seriously, the subpoena attempts to identify the Former
18 Debtor’s clients, whether or not those clients have already filed a lawsuit. The Former Debtor
19 has a whistleblower practice. Until and unless a whistleblower actually files a lawsuit, the
20 privilege governing the very existence of an attorney-client relationship between the
21 whistleblower and the Former Debtor must remain sacrosanct. Otherwise, a whistleblower who
22 has not yet decided to sue may be “outed.” The Court simply cannot violate privilege, particularly
23 when the consequences would be this severe. That is doubly the case because, as a contingency-
24 fee firm, the Former Debtor will not earn any legal fees until and unless its whistleblower clients
25 elect to file a lawsuit, so until and unless that occurs, there will be nothing for JFL to collect. In
26 addition to this clear invasion of the atttorney-client privilege of the Former Debtor’s clients, the
27 subpoena also seeks documents that invade the financial privacy of the Former Debtor’s
28
47
EXH I
-3-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
39 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:62
1 employees, various privileges belonging to the Former Debtor, and documents that simply have
2 nothing to do with locating the Former Debtor’s assets.
3 II. FACTS
4 JFL is attempting to collect a judgment against the Former Debtor in the principal amount
5 of $10 million. The Former Debtor is a contingency-fee law firm that assists whistleblowers,
6 among other categories of cases. Avenatti Decl., ¶ 2. Purportedly to advance its collection efforts,
7 JFL has issued (but not yet served) a subpoena on Michael Avenatti, the Former Debtor’s
8 managing partner, seeking 37 categories of documents relating or pertaining to the Former Debtor.
9 JFL has not provided any form of notice to the Former Debtor’s clients (present or former) or its
10 employees (present or former) that it is attempting to procure production of information relating to
11 them.
12 The language introducing these categories limits the requested documents to those
13 “evidencing the existence of any assets in which [the Former Debtor] claims a legal or beneficial
14 interest.” However, the subpoena seeks information having nothing to do with assets available for
15 collection. For example, the subpoena’s very first category seeks information about the Former
16 Debtor’s IOLTA and client trust accounts. Of course, it is black letter law that the money in these
17 accounts does not belong to the Former Debtor, but to its clients. Phillips v. Washington Legal
18 Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 164 (1998). Therefore such accounts are not available to satisfy claims
19 against the Former Debtor. Other categories having nothing to do with the Former Debtor’s assets
20 (which are therefore outside the subpoena’s scope, as limited by its prefatory language) are
21 Category Nos. 6 (the Former Debtor’s liabilities), 21-22 (payments made in the past by the Former
22 Debtor to its equity partners), 28-29 (payments made in the past from the Former Debtor’s bank
23 accounts), and 36 and 37 (all payments made by the Former Debtor and payroll records).
24 Category No. 1 also seeks cancelled checks or withdrawals from the Former Debtor’s accounts
25 (including its client trust accounts), but the Former Debtor obviously does not claim a legal or
26 beneficial interest in these withdrawals.
27
28
48
EXH I
-4-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
40 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:63
1 The subpoena invades the attorney-client privilege and fundamental privacy protections of
2 California law in two different respects. First, even though JFL has not provided notice of its
3 document requests to the Former Debtor’s clients, the subpoena includes categories that would
4 invade the attorney-client privilege and privacy rights of those clients. Category No. 11 requests a
5 list of all of the Former Debtor’s clients, even those who have not filed lawsuits. Under
6 California law, until the fact of an attorney-client relationship becomes public, the very fact that a
7 client has consulted an attorney is protected by the client’s privacy rights. Hooser v. Superior
8 Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1006 (2000) (refusing to order disclosure of the identities of
9 undisclosed clients to assist collection efforts: “[U]ntil . . . a public disclosure occurs, the client’s
10 identity is itself a matter of privacy, subject to the protection against involuntary disclosure
11 through compelled discovery.”).1 The Former Debtor includes a whistleblower practice among its
12 services. Avenatti Decl., ¶ 2. California law expressly recognizes the privacy concerns of “an
13 employee who is concerned about conduct in his workplace.” Hooser, 84 Cal. App. 4th at 1006.
14 Other requests directly invade the attorney-client privilege of the Former Debtor’s clients.
15 Category Nos. 14 and 16 seek the clients’ retainer agreements. Similarly, Category No. 24 also
16 seeks retainer agreements that identify Michael Avenatti as counsel. California law expressly
17 provides that written fee agreements are privileged. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 6149. Similarly,
18 because Gerald Tobin assisted the Former Debtor on the investigation of potential claims (Tobin
19 Decl., ¶ 3), Category No. 31, which requests all documents and communications relating to Mr.
20 Tobin, also invades the attorney-client privilege of the Former Debtor’s clients.
21 The subpoena to Avenatti also invades the privacy rights of the Former Debtor’s
22 employees. Category No. 37 requests the Former Debtor’s payroll records for six separate years.
23
1. In Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 557 & n.8 (2017), the Supreme Court
24
disagreed with a per se rule that the interest required to overcome a privacy right must
25 always be compelling. However, although the Court disapproved that aspect of the Hooser
Court’s reasoning, it did not suggest that the case was wrongly decided. Williams even
26 acknowledged that the Hooser Court’s use of the compelling need standard might well
have been correct. For present purposes, it is enough to observe that JFL’s interest in
27 collecting future legal fees from hypothetical lawsuits that may in the future be filed
cannot possibly outweigh the privacy interests of clients, particularly whistleblowers, who
28
have not yet elected to make public their relationship with the Former Debtor.
49
EXH I
-5-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
41 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:64
1 Category No. 36 seeks all payments made by the Former Debtor, which implicates the privacy
2 rights of both the Former Debtor’s employees and the Former Debtor’s prior clients.
3 Still other requests directly invade privileges belonging to the Former Debtor itself.
4 Category Nos. 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 27, 31, and 33 seek “[a]ll documents concerning or relating to”
5 various subject matters. These categories invade the Former Debtor’s attorney-client privilege
6 because they are framed broadly enough to require production of communications between the
7 Former Debtor and its litigation counsel regarding the requested subjects. Category No. 8 requests
8 the Former Debtor’s tax returns. Under California law, both federal and tax returns are privileged.
9 III. ARGUMENT
10 The underlying action is grounded purely in state law, so the state law of privilege applies.
11 FED. R. EVID. 501; Bozzuto v. Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP, 255 F.R.D. 673, 676 (C.D. Cal.
12 2009). Under California law, written client fee agreements are privileged. CAL. BUS. & PROF.
13 CODE § 6149. California law also makes tax returns privileged. Deary v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.
14 App. 4th 1072, 1077-78 (2001) (tax returns are privileged from production in civil litigation);
15 Webb v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Cal. 2d 509, 513-14 (1957) (applying the privilege to both state and
16 federal tax returns). And for the protection of clients (a fraught issue in the whistleblower
17 context), the identity of clients is privileged from production until the fact of the attorney-client
18 relationship has been disclosed to third parties. Hooser v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997,
19 1006 (2000). Payroll records are likewise privileged, to protect the financial privacy interests of
20 employees. Schnabel v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 704, 723 (1993) (reversing the trial court,
21 refusing to order production of payroll information pertaining to non-party employees). All of
22 these state law privileges must be honored in the present proceeding.
23 In addition, California has specific procedures intended to give notice to “consumers”2 and
24 employees so that they may protect their own privacy rights. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 1985.3,
25 1985.6. Federal courts have concluded that, at least in actions (such as this one) where state law
26 furnishes the rule of decision, the federal courts should honor California’s substantive privacy
27
2. An attorney’s records pertaining to a client are “personal records” of a “consumer” under
28
California law. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 1985.3(a)(1), (2).
50
EXH I
-6-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
42 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:65
1 protections. CatchPlay, Inc. v. Studio Solutions Group, Inc., Case No. CV 12-7525 GW (JC),
2 2013 WL 12146123, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013). Here, it is impossible to honor the privacy
3 rights of non-party clients and employees because they have received no notice whatsoever that
4 their personal records are being sought. Accordingly, although the Court need not use the precise
5 procedures prescribed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, there is no way to vindicate the
6 privacy rights of these non-parties without ensuring that they receive at least some notice of the
7 requested subpoena. Accordingly, the Court can and should quash the subpoena until it is satisfied
8 that the Former Debtor’s clients and employees have received adequate notice and an opportunity
9 to be heard with respect to any objections they may have.
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Former Debtor respectfully requests that the Court (i)
12 grant the requested Protective Order and quash the subpoena issued to Michael Avenatti; and (ii)
13 grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the facts and
14 circumstances of this case..
15 Dated: July 9, 2018 RAINES FELDMAN LLP
16

Hamid R. Rafatjoo
Eagan Avenatti LLP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51
EXH I
-7-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
43 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:66
1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. AVENATTI
2 I, Michael J. Avenatti, declare as follows:
3 1. I am the managing partner of Eagan Associates, LLP (“EA”), which is a law firm
4 with an offices in Newport Beach, California. I make this Declaration based on facts within my
5 personal knowledge. If called upon to testify, I would testify to the facts set forth in this
6 Declaration.
7 2. A portion of EA’s practice is devoted to whistleblower claims. The simple fact is
8 that if a potential whistleblower is discovered to have contacted EA (which has been advertising
9 its whistleblower practice) prior to filing suit, there is a significant risk that our client, the potential
10 whistleblower, would suffer an adverse job action, up through and including the possibility of
11 being fired for a pretextual reason. If the whistleblower works for a government agency, there is
12 even a risk that the potential whistleblower would be subjected to the risk of a criminal
13 investigation. Enduring such an investigation, no matter how ill-founded, would likely be
14 financially ruinous to anyone outside the very highest echelons of a company or a government
15 agency.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
17 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 9, 2018.
18
19 ______________________________
Michael J. Avenatti
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52
EXH I
-8-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
44 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:67
-9-
53
EXH I
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
45 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:68
54
EXH I
-10-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
46 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:69
EXH I
55
-11-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
47 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:70
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:
1800 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF EAGAN AVENATTI LLP FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATIONS OF
MICHAEL J. AVENATTI AND GERALD TOBIN IN SUPPORT THEREOF
will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in
the manner stated below:
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 hyperlink to the document. On (date)
July 9, 2018 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the
following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:
 Michael Avenatti mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com, jregnier@eaganavenatti.com

 Mikel R Bistrow mikel.bistrow@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
 Peter W Bowie peter.bowie@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
 Christopher Celentino chris.celentino@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
 Sara Chenetz schenetz@perkinscoie.com,
dlax@perkinscoie.com;cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;mduncan@perkinscoie.com
 Fahim Farivar ffarivar@foley.com, amcdow@foley.com;khernandez@foley.com
 Amir Gamliel amir-gamliel-9554@ecf.pacerpro.com,
cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;DocketLA@perkinscoie.com;JDerosier@perkinscoie.com
 David B Golubchik dbg@lnbyb.com, dbg@ecf.inforuptcy.com
 Michael J Hauser michael.hauser@usdoj.gov
 Mark S Horoupian mhoroupian@sulmeyerlaw.com,
ppenn@sulmeyerlaw.com;mhoroupian@ecf.inforuptcy.com;dperez@sulmeyerlaw.com;ppenn@ecf.info
ruptcy.com
 James KT Hunter jhunter@pszjlaw.com
 Sheri Kanesaka sheri.kanesaka@fnf.com, Christine.hipp@fnf.com
 Isaac Marcushamer
 Ashley M McDow amcdow@foley.com, Khernandez@foley.com;Ffarivar@foley.com
 Malhar S Pagay mpagay@pszjlaw.com, mpagay@pszjlaw.com
 R Gibson Pagter gibson@ppilawyers.com, ecf@ppilawyers.com;pagterrr51779@notify.bestcase.com
 Misty A Perry Isaacson misty@ppilawyers.com,
ecf@ppilawyers.com;perryisaacsonmr51779@notify.bestcase.com
 Thomas J Polis tom@polis-law.com, paralegal@polis-law.com;r59042@notify.bestcase.com
 Hamid R Rafatjoo hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com, bclark@raineslaw.com;cwilliams@raineslaw.com
 Robert M Saunders rsaunders@pszjlaw.com, rsaunders@pszjlaw.com
 James R Selth jim@wsrlaw.net, jselth@yahoo.com;brian@wsrlaw.net;vinnet@ecf.inforuptcy.com
 Najah J Shariff najah.shariff@usdoj.gov, USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov
 David H Stein dstein@wilentz.com
 Michael K Symons mike@symonsmarkwith.com, mike@symonsmarkwith.com
 United States Trustee (SA) ustpregion16.sa.ecf@usdoj.gov
Service information continued on attached page

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
56
June 2012 EXH I F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
493 Filed
6-107/09/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/09/18
48 of17:24:50
95 Page Desc
ID #:71
2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL:

On (date) _______________, 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 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 document is filed.
3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) July 9, 2018 I served the
following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail 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 mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is
filed.
Via Overnight Delivery

The Honorable Catherine E. Bauer
United States Bankruptcy Court
411 West Fourth Street, Suite 5165
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
7/9/2018 Bambi Clark /s/ Bambi Clark

Date Printed Name Signature
57
June 2012
EXH I F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
EXHIBIT "J" 58
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
50 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:73
1 Sara L.Chenetz - SBN 206936

Amir Gamliel - SBN 268121
2 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: (310) 788-9900
4 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399
Schenetz@perkinscoie.com
5
Daniel J. Weintraub - SBN 132111
6 James R. Selth - SBN 123420
Nina Z. Javan – SBN 271392
7 WEINTRAUB & SELTH, APC
11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170
Telephone: (310) 207-1494
9 Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
jim@wsrlaw.net
10
Attorneys for Judgment Creditor,
11 JASON FRANK LAW, PLC
12
15
16 In re Chapter 11
17 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Bankruptcy No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
18 Debtor.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
19 JUDGMENT DEBTOR EAGAN AVENATTI
LLP FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;
20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
21

Time: 10:00 am.
23 Courtroom: 5D
24
25
26 TO THE HONORABLE CATHERINE BAUER, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

27 JUDGE, AND TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST:
28
59
EXH J
-1-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
51 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:74
1 Judgment Creditor, Jason Frank Law, PLC hereby respectfully submits its Opposition to
2 Judgment Debtor Eagan Avenatti LLP’s Motion for a Protective Order.
4 I.
5 INTRODUCTION
6 This Court issued a Judgment against Eagan Avenatti LLP (“Judgment Debtor”) in favor of
7 Jason Frank Law, PLC (“Judgment Creditor”) in the sum of $10 million on May 22, 2018 [Docket
8 No. 445]. As of the date of this Opposition, no payment has been received from Judgment Debtor
9 toward the judgment. To the contrary, instead of making any good faith efforts towards satisfying
10 the judgment, Judgment Debtor has instead chosen to incur attorneys’ fees to oppose every action
11 of Judgment Creditor to enforce the judgment, including Judgment Creditor’s Motion for
12 Assignment and Restraining Order [Docket No. 470].
13 Continuing this pattern of conduct, in response to the service of Michael Avenatti of an
14 Order to Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor on July 25, 2018 and Subpoena commanding
15 the Production of Documents thereat [see Proof of Service filed July 11, 2018 as Docket No. 500],
16 Judgment Debtor has filed a Motion for Protective Order quashing the Subpoena, which is noticed
17 for hearing on August 9, 2018, two weeks after the required date for production. As set forth
18 below, the Motion is procedurally deficient and also fails to establish a legal basis to quash the
19 Subpoena.
20
21 II.
22 THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS PROCEDURALLY FLAWED
23 Initially, the Motion violates FRCP 26, which is incorporated in bankruptcy proceedings
24 under FRBP 7026, since before moving for a protective order, a party must confer or attempt to
25 confer in good faith with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court
26 action. [FRCP 26(c)(1)]. If such a motion is filed, it must be accompanied by a certification that the
27 movant has met its obligation to meet and confer (see FRCP 26(c)(1)). There was no attempt to
28 meet and confer by Judgment Debtor and there is no required certification attached to the Motion.
60
EXH J
-2-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
52 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:75
1 See Lindsey v. Boeing Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124691 (W.D. Wash 2009), which held:
2 “Ms. Lindsey's motion is also improper because she has failed to

comply with her meet-and-confer obligations under the Federal
3 Rules. Pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1), "[t]he motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted
4
to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute
5 without court action." The purpose of such rule is clear: counsel
should take all reasonable steps to resolve their disputes before
6 bringing their claims to court. Indeed, this district court consistently
denies Rule 26(c) motions where a party fails to fulfill their meet-
7 and-confer obligations.”
8 See also the cases of Mikron Indus. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
9
35166 (W.D. Wash 2008) and Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., 2016
10
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109451 (E.D. Cal. 2016), in which District Courts denied a motion for protective
11
order for failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements of FRCP 26(c)(1). Accordingly,
12
the motion must be denied on this procedural ground.
13
14
III.
15
THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DOES NOT EXCUSE
16
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA
17
Additionally, the mere filing with the Court of a motion for protective order does not
18
preclude the legal duty under the subpoena to appear to give testimony and\or to produce
19
documents, if the subpoena is duces tecum. A subpoena is a form of Court Order and must be
20
obeyed unless excused by the Court. A party served with a deposition notice or subpoena must
21
obtain a protective order (e.g., a stay of the production pending hearing on the motion) before the
22
date set for the document production or deposition. “(I)t is for the court, not the deponent or his
23
counsel, to relieve him of the duty to appear.” Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman, 333
24
F.2d 257, 269 (9th Cir. 1964); see also F.A.A. v. Landy ,705 F.2d 624, 634 (2nd Cir. 1983).
25 “It is well-settled that the filing of a motion for protective order does not
automatically operate to stay a deposition or other discovery. U.S. v.
26 Fesman, 781 F. Supp. 511, 514 (S.D.Ohio 1991); Goodwin v. City of
Boston, 118 F.R.D. 297 (D.Mass. 1988); Hepperle v. Johnston, 590
27 F.2d 609, 613 (5th Cir. 1979).”
28 In re Hollar, 184 B.R. 243, 246 (Bkrtcy. M.D.N.C. 1995)
61
EXH J
-3-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
53 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:76
1 IV.
2 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 DOES NOT APPLY
3 TO SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY A FEDERAL COURT
4 Contrary to Judgment Debtor’s argument, California Code of Civil Procedure Section
5 1985.3 does not apply to subpoenas issued by a federal court. A federal court follows federal
6 procedural law. Kohlrautz v. Oilmen Participation Corp., 441 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 2006). The
7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply irrespective of the source of subject-matter jurisdiction, and
8 irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.,
9 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003). Discovery is a procedural matter governed by federal law.
10 Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., Inc., 312 U.S. 1, 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479 (1941); Univ. of Texas
11 at Austin v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1340 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996); Fagin v. Gilmartin, 432 F.3d 276, 285
12 n.2 (3rd Cir. 2005). “[I]t is wholly settled that discovery in a federal court is governed only by
13 these rules and that state discovery practices are irrelevant.” 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal
14 Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d § 2005 (1994 & Suppl. 2006).
15 This includes discovery related to enforcing a federal judgment. Id; see also British Intern.
16 Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (holding that a
17 Texas statute setting forth the procedures to be followed when seeking bank customer information
18 was not applicable to a judgment creditor's requests for production of bank documents showing
19 transfers between the judgment debtor and corporate entities, because the judgment creditor pursued
20 post-judgment discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
21 By its terms, C.C.P. § 1985.3 only applies to a person who causes “a subpoena duces tecum
22 to be issued or served in connection with any civil action or proceeding pursuant to this code . . .”
23 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3(a)(3) (emphasis added). The subpoena in this case by
24 Judgment Creditor was clearly not issued pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure. See
25 McKinney v. Department of the Treasury, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16442 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 1996).
26 See also RBS Secs. Inc. v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128686 (S.D.
27 Cal. 2012) (“This Court instead will credit the plain language of the statute regarding its scope. A
28
62
EXH J
-4-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
54 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:77
1 subpoena duces tecum issued under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not subject to CCP
2 1985.3 which, by its terms, is limited to subpoenas issued under the CCP.”)
3 As such, no “consumer notices” to third parties under CCP § 1985.3 were required for
4 issuance and service of the subject subpoena to Judgment Debtor.
6 V.
7 CLIENT FEE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER
8 APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW
9 A. Federal Privilege Law Applies
10 Judgment Debtor mistakenly asserts that California privilege law applies to this proceeding,
11 specifically Business and Professions Code Section 6149. However, the law is well established that
12 in actions to enforce a judgment in federal court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 (made
13 applicable in bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7069), federal
14 privilege law applies, and there is no federal privilege preventing the disclosure of attorney-client
15 fee agreements. To the contrary, such agreements are specifically not privileged, as shown below.
16 See Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335 (1973), in which the Supreme Court held
17 “we note that no confidential accountant-client privilege exists under federal law, and no state-
18 created privilege has been recognized in federal cases.” See also In re International Horizons, Inc.,
19 689 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1982), which held that the federal court was not required to apply the forum
20 state’s rules of evidentiary privilege as a matter of law because application would undermine an
21 important federal interest in assuring complete and accurate disclosure in federal bankruptcy
22 proceedings.
23 See also the Internet Direct Response, Inc. v. Buckley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50576 (C.D.
24 Cal. 2010), in which a motion for a protective order based on a state law privilege in a federal
25 judgment enforcement proceeding was denied by the District Court of this district:
26 //
27 //
28 //
63
EXH J
-5-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
55 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:78
1 “In this action to enforce the judgment of another federal court,

however, federal common law regarding privileges apply. See
2 Heathman v. United States District Court, 503 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir.
1974); Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs. Inc., 2008
3 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93298, 2008 WL 4858502, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
10, 2008); Fed. R. Evid. 501. Moreover, even if the Court affords
4 some deference to California's tax return privilege, the public policy in
ensuring federal judgments are enforced overcomes Mrs. Buckley's
5 assertion of privilege in this case.”
6 “Since this was a Rule 69 examination taken to enforce a judgment rendered in a bankruptcy
7 proceeding, federal privilege law applies”. Tibble v. Daniels, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73132 (W.D.
8 Mo. 2016) (citing Koenig v. Bourdeau Constr. LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38315 (E.D. Mo.
9 2015), holding that federal privilege law, not state law, governs in a Rule 69 examination taken
10 following a judgment entered in an FLSA action.
11 Finally, see Judge Tighe’s ruling in In re Ginzburg, 517 B.R. 175, 182 (Bkrtcy. C.D. Cal.
12 2014): “[F]ederal common law governs control of a debtor’s privileges. The question of privilege
13 asserted in bankruptcy court is a procedural question and existing federal law is to be used.”
14 [citations omitted]
15 B. There Is No Federal Privilege Protecting Disclosure of the Identity of a Judgment

16 Debtor’s Clients and Their Retainer Agreements.
17 “As a general rule, client identity and the nature of the fee arrangement between attorney
18 and client are not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.” United States v.
19 Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418,1424 (9th Cir. 1995); citing Ralls v. United States, 52 F.3d 223, 225 (9th
20 Cir. 1995). “As a general principle, information regarding a client's fees is not protected by the
21 attorney-client privilege because the payment of fees is not a confidential communication between
22 the attorney and the client.” In re Grand Jury Proceeding, Cherney, 898 F.2d 565, 567 (7th Cir.
23 1990). See also Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988), holding that fee
24 information generally is not privileged since payment of fees is incidental to the attorney-client
25 relationship, and does not usually involve disclosure of confidential communications arising from
26 the professional relationship.
27 //
28 //
64
EXH J
-6-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
56 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:79
1 Generally, retainer agreements are not protected by attorney-client privilege. See Stopka v.
2 Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 816 F. Supp. 2d 516, 532-33 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “Communications
3 between attorney and client that concern the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the
4 identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are
5 usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.” Paul v. Winco Holdings,
6 Inc., 249 F.R.D. 643, 654 (D. Idaho 2008) (citing Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d
7 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992)). “[F]ee agreements or retainer agreements generally are not privileged.”
8 Universal City Dev. Ptnrs, Ltd. v. Ride & Show Eng'g, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 688, 691 (M.D. Fla. 2005)
9 “[T]he Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held retainer agreements are not protected by the
10 attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.” Hoot Winc, LLC v. RSM McGladrey Financial
11 Process Outsourcing, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103045 (S.D. Cal. 2009), citing Ralls v. United
12 States, supra, United States v. Blackman, supra, and In re Michaelson, 511 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.1975).
13 Moreover, even if California privilege law applied, “[I]t is well established that the attorney-
14 client privilege, designed to protect communications between them, does not ordinarily protect the
15 client's identity.” People v. Chapman (1984) 36 Cal.3d 98, 110 (disapproved on other grounds in
16 People v. Palmer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 856, 861-862. Further, disclosure of information requested in
17 written interrogatories propounded of plaintiff in an action between brothers arising from
18 termination of their association in practice of law, which primarily sought names and addresses of
19 certain clients and their fee arrangements, was not barred by the attorney–client privilege nor
20 precluded by right of privacy of nonparty clients secured by the State Constitution. Willis v.
21 Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.3d 277 (1980).
22 Finally, should the Court believe that any of Judgment Debtor’s clients are entitled to an
23 exceptional right of privacy due to their alleged “whistleblower” status, the Court can impose a
24 prohibition under a protective order against disclosure of the clients’ names by Judgment Creditor
25 and its counsel. Alternatively, if the Court is convinced no lesser restriction would suffice, the
26 Court can order that such “whistleblower” clients (and only such clients) be identified by a
27 pseudonym.
28 //
65
EXH J - 7 -
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
57 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:80
1 VI.
2 JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS
3 ALLOW A WIDE SCOPE OF INQUIRY
4 In 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179228
5 (S.D. Cal. 2014), the District Court discussed “the broad scope of judgment debtor examinations”,
6 and noted that judgment debtor examinations are intended “to allow the judgment creditor a wide
7 scope of inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the judgment debtor,” (Hooser v.
8 Superior Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997 (2000)), and “to leave no stone unturned in the search for
9 assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment.” (Troy v. Superior Court, 186 Cal. App. 3d
10 1006, 1014 (1986)). “[I]t is clear that in an attempt to discover assets by which to satisfy its
11 judgment, plaintiff is entitled to a very thorough examination of the judgment debtor.” Caisson
12 Corp. v. County West Building Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 335 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
13 “The purpose of a Rule 69 proceeding is to identify assets from which a judgment might be
14 satisfied.” Baker v. Limber, 647 F.2d 912, 920 (9th Cir. 1981) See also Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v.
15 LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163, 172 (5th Cir. 1995), which held that “[t]he scope of post-judgment discovery
16 is very broad to permit a judgment creditor to discover assets upon which execution may be made.”
17 This was cited with approval by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in In re Frye, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS
18 4556 (9th Cir. BAP 2009)
19 “Rule 69 was intended to provide the post-judgment creditor with an efficient means of
20 uncovering the existence of assets upon which he may levy to satisfy the judgment. Courts have
21 consistently held that the scope of post-judgment discovery is broad, enabling the post-judgment
22 creditor to seek discovery not only of the debtor's current assets, but also of past financial
23 transactions which could lead to the existence of fraudulently concealed or fraudulently conveyed
24 assets.” Dering v. Pitassi, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12075 (E.D. Pa. 1988) [Emphasis added]
25 Post-judgment discovery under Rule 69 authorizes discovery by a judgment creditor for the
26 purpose of discovering any concealed or fraudulently transferred assets and “quite clearly entitles a
27 judgment creditor to utilize the full panoply of federal discovery measures, including production of
28 documents under Rule 34.” Magnaleasing, Inc. v. Staten Island Mall, 76 F.R.D. 559, 561, 561 n.1
66
EXH J
-8-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
58 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:81
1 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) Even post-judgment discovery requests that might be burdensome do not
2 outweigh a judgment creditor’s right for the information “to secure its judgment.” Minpeco, S.A. v.
3 Hunt, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5723 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)
4 As such, Judgment Debtor’s subpoena for financial records of the Judgment Debtor, while
5 thorough, is neither overbroad nor overly burdensome. This Court awarded Judgment Creditor a
6 $10 million judgment against Judgment Debtor, which should be devoting its efforts to repaying the
7 judgment rather than trying to throw up roadblocks to prevent Judgment Creditor from collecting it.
8 Finally, the judgment debtor examination of an entity judgment debtor may include
9 questioning regarding the assets of its principal. See Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc., 160
10 F.3d 428 (8th Cir. 1998), which held that there was a presumption in favor of full discovery of any
11 matters arguably related to a judgment creditor’s efforts to trace the assets of a corporate judgment
12 debtor and otherwise enforce its judgment. The court concluded that, given the circumstances
13 surrounding the corporation and its sole officer, an inquiry into the officer's personal finances was a
14 subject of reasonable inquiry:
15 “The presumption should be in favor of full discovery of any matters

arguably related to the [creditor's] efforts to trace [the debtor’s] assets
16 and otherwise to enforce its judgment," particularly where the
relationship between the debtor and a third party "is sufficient to raise a
17 reasonable doubt about the bona fides of [any] transfer of assets
between them.”
18
Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc., supra at 431.
19
20 Therefore, Judgment Creditor’s subpoena for documents relating to financial transaction by
21 and between Judgment Debtor and its partners is also appropriate and must be enforced. Judgment
22 Debtor’s arguments in the Motion to the contrary (at Page 4, Lines 19-24) are clearly without merit.
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
67
EXH J
-9-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
59 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:82
1 VII.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor respectfully requests that Judgment Debtor’s
4 Motion be denied, in its entirety.
5 Respectfully submitted,
6
7
/s/ James R. Selth
25 2018
8 Dated: July ___, ________________________________
Daniel J. Weintraub
9 James R. Selth
Nina Z. Javan
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
68
EXH J
- 10 -
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
60 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:83

11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1170, Los Angeles, CA 90025
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR
EAGAN AVENATTI LLP FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES will be
served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the
manner stated below:
Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On July 25,
2018, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following
persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:

On N/A, 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 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 document is filed.
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on July 25, 2018, I served the
filed.
Personal delivery to Chambers of Hon. Catherine Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Court, Santa Ana Division
July 25, 2018 Sondra Solish /s/ Sondra Solish

69
EXH J
June 2012 F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
513 Filed
6-107/25/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/25/18
61 of20:02:49
95 Page Desc
ID #:84
1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF):
Michael Avenatti mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com, jregnier@eaganavenatti.com

Mikel R Bistrow mikel.bistrow@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
Peter W Bowie peter.bowie@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
Christopher Celentino chris.celentino@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com;
SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM
Sara Chenetz schenetz@perkinscoie.com, dlax@perkinscoie.com;cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;
mduncan@perkinscoie.com
Fahim Farivar ffarivar@foley.com, amcdow@foley.com;khernandez@foley.com
Amir Gamliel amir-gamliel-9554@ecf.pacerpro.com, cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;DocketLA@perkinscoie.com;
JDerosier@perkinscoie.com
David B Golubchik dbg@lnbyb.com, dbg@ecf.inforuptcy.com
Michael J Hauser michael.hauser@usdoj.gov
Mark S Horoupian mhoroupian@sulmeyerlaw.com, ppenn@sulmeyerlaw.com;mhoroupian@ecf.inforuptcy.com;
dperez@sulmeyerlaw.com;ppenn@ecf.inforuptcy.com
James KT Hunter jhunter@pszjlaw.com
Sheri Kanesaka sheri.kanesaka@fnf.com, Christine.hipp@fnf.com
Isaac Marcushamer
Ashley M McDow amcdow@foley.com, Khernandez@foley.com;Ffarivar@foley.com
Malhar S Pagay mpagay@pszjlaw.com, mpagay@pszjlaw.com
R Gibson Pagter gibson@ppilawyers.com, ecf@ppilawyers.com;pagterrr51779@notify.bestcase.com
Misty A Perry Isaacson misty@ppilawyers.com, ecf@ppilawyers.com;perryisaacsonmr51779@notify.bestcase.com
Thomas J Polis tom@polis-law.com, paralegal@polis-law.com;r59042@notify.bestcase.com
Hamid R Rafatjoo hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com, bclark@raineslaw.com;cwilliams@raineslaw.com
Robert M Saunders rsaunders@pszjlaw.com, rsaunders@pszjlaw.com
James R Selth jim@wsrlaw.net, jselth@yahoo.com;brian@wsrlaw.net;vinnet@ecf.inforuptcy.com
Najah J Shariff najah.shariff@usdoj.gov, USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov
David H Stein dstein@wilentz.com
Michael K Symons mike@symonsmarkwith.com, mike@symonsmarkwith.com
United States Trustee (SA) ustpregion16.sa.ecf@usdoj.gov
70
EXH J
EXHIBIT "K" 71
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
63 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:86
1 RAINES FELDMAN LLP

Miles J. Feldman (State Bar No. 173383)
2 Robert M. Shore (State Bar No. 166018)
Hamid R. Rafatjoo (State Bar No. 181564)
3 1800 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor
4 Telephone: 310.440.4100
Facsimile: 310.691.1367
5 E-mail: mfeldman@raineslaw.com
rshore@raineslaw.com
6 hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com

Eagan Avenatti, LLP
8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA ANA DIVISION
10
In re: Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
11
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Chapter 11
12
Debtor. REPLY OF EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP TO
13 JASON FRANK LAW PLC’S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
14

Time: 10:00 a.m.
411 West Fourth Street
17 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593
18 Judge: The Hon. Catherine E. Bauer
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
72
EXH K
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
64 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:87
2 Judgment Debtor Eagan Avenatti LLP (“EA”) respectfully submits its Reply to Judgment
3 Creditor Jason Frank Law, PLC’s (“JFL”) Opposition to Avenatti’s Motion for Protective Order.
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 In its moving papers, EA demonstrated that JFL seeks documents that would breach
6 numerous privileges and privacy protections guaranteed to non-parties — EA’s clients — under
7 California law, as well as EA’s own privileges. JFL’s first response is to argue that the Court
8 should abrogate these privileges, which belong to non-parties and are designed to ensure they
9 receive notice and an opportunity to be heard, because EA did not conduct the meet-and-confer
10 process that would be required in the discovery context. But JFL’s subpoena was not issued in the
11 discovery context, so that requirement does not apply. To the contrary, Rule 45 provides stand-
12 alone authority to request a protective order, and Rule 45 does not include a meet-and-confer
13 requirement. Even if the Court construes the meet-and-confer requirement as applicable in this
14 non-discovery context, it would be unconscionable to refuse on that basis to consider privilege
15 claims belonging to non-parties who have not received an opportunity to be heard.
16 On the merits, JFL does not dispute that all of the information identified by EA is
17 privileged or protected under California law. Instead, JFL urges the Court to disregard California
18 law because, according to JFL, this Court must apply the federal law of privilege. JFL’s argument
19 is contrary to the plain text of Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule requires the
20 application of state privilege law when state law furnishes the rule of decision. Here, state law
21 furnishes the rule of decision because JFL’s underlying claim was a claim for breach of contract.
22 JFL tacitly concedes that EA’s request must be granted if state law governs, so the Court should
23 grant EA’s request for a protective order in full.
24 I. ARGUMENT
25 A. The Motion was Proper Under FRCP 45
26 1. FRCP 26 Does Not Apply to JFL’s Subpoena to Testify at Hearing
27 JFL incorrectly claims that the Motion violates FRCP 26(c)(1) because EA did not meet
28 and confer prior to the filing of its Motion. By its terms, the meet-and-confer requirement of Rule
73
EXH K
-1-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
65 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:88
1 26(c)(1) is limited to “any person from whom discovery is sought.” Id. The meet-and-confer
2 requirement of Rule 26 does not apply here because JFL’s subpoena was not a discovery device.
3 Instead, it compelled Avenatti’s attendance at a hearing.
4 The text of Rule 45 distinguishes between a subpoena commanding attendance at a
5 deposition, on the one hand, and a subpoena commanding attending at a hearing or trial, on the
6 other hand. FRCP 45(a)(1)(C). Attendance at a deposition is a discovery procedure. FRCP 30.
7 Attendance at a hearing or trial is not.
8 In this case, JFL’s subpoena clearly sought testimony at a hearing. The subpoena’s caption
9 stated that it required attendance “at a hearing or trial.” The subpoena’s operative language
10 required attendance “to testify at a hearing or trial.” Emphasizing this distinction, the subpoena
11 also instructed the witness to “remain at the court until the judge or a court official allows you to
12 leave.” This requirement is not present for deposition subpoenas.
13 Like Rule 26, Rule 45 also authorizes a motion to protect the subpoenaed person when a
14 subpoena “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter.” FRCP 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).
15 However, in contrast to Rule 26, Rule 45’s stand-alone authority for seeking protection from an
16 subpoena that requests privileged information, or seeks to impose an undue burden on the
17 subpoenaed party, does not include a meet-and-confer requirement. The reason for this distinction
18 is obvious. When testimony is given at a hearing or trial, a judicial officer is immediately
19 available to resolve any disputes over the appropriate conduct of the proceeding. There is simply
20 no time or rationale in this context to require the parties to meet and confer in advance. Indeed,
21 imposing such a requirement would be ridiculous in the context of a trial or hearing because it
22 would require a jury and/or the judge to wait while the parties attempt to negotiate a resolution to
23 their dispute.
24 Even if there were some basis to suggest that a meet-and-confer were necessary (but as
25 discussed above, there was not), the Court should in this case excuse compliance with that
26 requirement. JFL’s position is that the Court should entirely disregard the merits of EA’s
27 privilege arguments because EA failed to meet and confer. As discussed above, EA’s position
28
74
EXH K
-2-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
66 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:89
1 was correct, but even if the Court disagrees, it was at worst excusable error. But the vast majority
2 of the privilege issues raised by EA in its motion belong to third parties — EA’s clients. It would
3 be unconscionable to deprive these third parties of their rights on that basis without considering
4 the merits of their claims.
5 Moreover, it is clear from JFL’s arguments that a meet-and-confer would not have
6 narrowed the issues. JFL’s position, as stated in its papers, is that none of EA’s privilege
7 objections have merit because all are governed by federal law and federal law differs from
8 California law with respect to the privileges that EA is asserting on behalf of its clients and
9 employees. Indeed, JFL has, by its silence, conceded that EA is entitled to prevail on this motion
10 if state law governs the resolution of these privilege issues. In contrast, as discussed in its moving
11 papers and as further discussed below, EA has demonstrated that the California law of privilege
12 must be applied in these proceedings. In short, to the extent the Court concludes that a meet-and-
13 confer was required, it should excuse that requirement here because in practice, it would not have
14 done any good.
15 2. The Motion Timely Asserted Avenatti’s Objections and Privilege

Claims
16
JFL also suggests that EA was obligated to produce the disputed documents
17
notwithstanding his timely motion. JFL is wrong on this point as well. An objection is sufficient
18
to suspend the subpoenaed party’s obligation to produce documents. FRCP 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). An
19
objection must “describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible
20
things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable
21
the parties to assess the claim.” FRCP 45(e)(2)(A)(ii). EA’s motion expressly claimed the
22
applicable privileges and gave sufficient description of the documents to be withheld (and JFL
23
does not contend to the contrary), so it does “double duty” as an objection that suspended EA’s
24
obligation to produce documents until the motion has been resolved.
25
26
27
28
75
EXH K
-3-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
67 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:90
1 B. Avenatti Clients and Employees are Entitled to Protection of Their Third

Party Privacy Rights and Confidential Attorney-Client Communications
2 Under California and Federal Law
3 JFL argues that state-created privacy rights are not enforceable in this action, because only
4 federal law applies. JFL’s assertions are contrary to the plain text of the statutes, case law and
5 intent of the Legislature.
6 1. California Law Governs Privilege Claims Pursuant to FRE 501
7 Federal law is clear that in diversity cases, state law is decisive on any claims or defenses
8 related to a privilege or privacy right. FED. R. EVID. 501 (“[I]n a civil case, state law governs
9 privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision”); see Star
10 Editorial, Inc. v. United States District Court, 7 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that after
11 state defamation action was removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, existence
12 and extent of claimed privilege was controlled by California law); Canon Solutions Am., Inc. v.
13 Gungap, Case No. SACV1401990JLSKESX, 2016 WL 9137647, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016)
14 (“In diversity cases such as this one, a person’s right to exert a privilege is governed by state law .
15 . . .”); see also Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (holding
16 that to extent privacy is a matter of privilege under state law, federal courts will honor the
17 privilege and protect the responding party from discovery).
18 Indeed, when state substantive rights are involved, the Ninth Circuit requires deference to
19 those rights even when the matter would not be privileged under federal law. In Feldman v.
20 Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 667 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals decided that taped
21 conversations that were recorded in violation of California law could not be admitted at trial, even
22 though they would have been admissible under federal law. This holding was necessary,
23 according to the Court of Appeals, to vindicate California’s substantive interests in the privacy of
24 its citizens. Id. So it is here. The consumer notice and employee notice statutes are substantive
25 provisions of California law that give the affected consumers and employees an opportunity to
26 receive notice and be heard before the private financial or personal information are disclosed. In a
27 world where identity theft is becoming increasingly rampant, the Ninth Circuit’s rule clearly
28
76
EXH K
-4-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
68 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:91
1 applies to require this Court to respect California’s policy of affording advance notice in these
2 circumstances.
3 For its contrary position, JFL’s relies on case law that is largely inapplicable because it
4 relies on cases involving federal questions, so that FRE 501 mandates the application of federal
5 privilege law. See Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 326-27 (1973) (involving summons by
6 IRS under federal statute to produce business records); In re International Horizons, Inc., 689
7 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that because bankruptcy case did not involve state claims
8 or defenses it was not required to apply state accountant-client privilege); Tibble v. Daniels, Case
9 No. 3:14-MC-05006-DGK, 2016 WL 4031218 (W.D. Mo., July 26, 2016) (the case involved a
10 bankruptcy trustee’s efforts to obtain documents); see also 2016 WL 3167257 (W.D. Mo. June 6,
11 2016) (noting that the case was a judgment in an FLSA action — a federal claim). Here, the party
12 demanding documents is a private party, not the trustee, and the underlying judgment was
13 grounded exclusively in state law.
14 JFL also relies on case law discussing ownership of the debtor’s privilege while the debtor
15 remains in bankruptcy. In re Bazemore (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998) 216 B.R. 1020, 1024 (Chapter 7
16 trustee was entitled to waive privilege in a bankruptcy case); In re International Horizons,
17 Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981) 14 B.R. 199, aff’d (N.D. Ga. 1981) 16 B.R. 484, aff'd, (11th Cir.
18 1982) 689 F.2d 996 (court held no federal accountant-client privilege, in bankruptcy action by
19 committee of unsecured creditors against debtor’s accounting firm); In re Ginzburg (Bankr. C.D.
20 Cal. 2014) 517 B.R. 175, 182 (Chapter 7 adversary proceeding where court held that in
21 bankruptcy proceeding based solely on state law claims that bankruptcy court, bankruptcy court
22 must refer to state law); In re Bame (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000) 251 B.R. 367, 373 (in adversary
23 proceeding to deny debtor’s discharge, the court held that upon conversion of Chapter 11 case to
24 Chapter 7, and appointment of Chapter 7 trustee, attorney-client privilege passed to trustee and
25 privilege was trustee's privilege, to waive or assert as he saw fit). These cases obviously do not
26 apply here because EA is no longer in bankruptcy and also because, to a large extent, the
27 privileges under discussion belong to non-parties, not to EA.
28
77
EXH K
-5-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
69 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:92
1 JFL has found one case, an unpublished district court case, that agrees with its position.
2 See Internet Direct Response, Inc. v. Buckley, Case No. SACV09-01335 ABC MLGx, 2010 WL
3 1752181, at *5 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 29, 2010) (applying federal privilege law). To the extent it relied
4 on federal law (the Court also found that production would have been appropriate under state law),
5 the Court’s analysis was mistaken. The Magistrate Judge relied primarily on Heathman v. United
6 States Dist. Court, 503 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1974). This reliance was mistaken for two
7 reasons. First, the underlying action in Heathman was a federal question case. Second, Heathman
8 was decided a year before the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted. Thus, Heathman sheds no
9 light on which law of privilege applies under the Federal Rules of Evidence when the underlying
10 case is exclusively governed by state law. The Buckley Court also cited Del Campo v. American
11 Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., No. C 01-21151 JW, 2008 WL 4858502, at *1 (N.D. Cal.,
12 Nov. 10, 2008), which involved mixed federal and state claims and thus does not apply the same
13 rule as cases that are purely governed by state law. See Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 876 (9th
14 Cir. 2014) (where federal and state law claims are joined in the same action, claims of privilege
15 are determined under federal law).
16
2. Avenatti Clients and Employees Are Entitled to Protection of Third-
17 Party Privacy Rights Pursuant to CCP § 1985.3
18 (a) Third Party Privacy Rights Are Substantive Rights that Should
be Protected under California Law
19
JFL contends that third party rights under CCP § 1985.3 are procedural in nature, requiring
20
application of federal procedural law, rather than encompassing substantive rights. As noted
21
above, JFL’s argument flies in the face of Ninth Circuit precedent. The Court of Appeals has
22
already concluded that California’s privacy protections are substantive rules that must be honored
23
in federal court. Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 667 (9th Cir. 2003). At a minimum,
24
these rules require that a law firm’s clients and an employer’s employees must receive some form
25
of notice before their private personal and financial information are subject to production to third
26
parties. JFL has made no effort to provide this notice, so the motion should be granted on this
27
ground.
28
78
EXH K
-6-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
70 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:93
1 (b) The Plain Language of CCP § 1985.3 Makes the Statute

Applicable to “all Civil Proceedings”
2
JFL makes a textual argument that the Legislature did not protect California citizens whose
3
personal information is implicated in federal court proceedings. According to JFL, “[b]y its terms,
4
CCP § 1985.3 only applies to a person who causes a ‘subpoena duces tecum to be issued or served
5
in connection with any civil action or proceeding pursuant to the code.’” JFL Opp. Mtn., pg. 4.
6
JFL is wrong as a matter of California statutory interpretation. California follows the “last
7
antecedent rule,” which provides that qualifying words, phrases and clauses generally apply to the
8
words or phrases immediately preceding, and do not extend to or include other more remote words
9
and phrases. Center for Local Gov’t Accountability v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1146,
10
1152 (2016). Although this rule can be overcome by other textual indicia of legislative intent, the
11
courts generally construe the use of the term “or” (rather than “and”) to support the legislature’s
12
intent to follow the last antecedent rule. California Sch. Employees Ass’n v. Governing Bd., 124
13
Cal. App. 4th 574, 584-85 (2004).
14
Applying that rule here defeats JFL’s textual argument. California law provides for both
15
actions and special proceedings. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 22. Section 1985.3 applies to civil
16
actions (filed pursuant to any source of authority) and to any proceeding filed pursuant to the
17
California Code of Civil Procedure. The limitation “pursuant to this code” does not apply to the
18
antecedent phrase “civil action.”
19
Indeed, imposing this limitation would have been contrary to the Legislature’s clear intent
20
to protect California citizens from invasion of their privacy rights. Under JFL’s construction, a
21
subpoena issued pursuant to a civil action filed in another state, or in federal court, could be
22
enforced with complete disregard for the privacy rights of California citizens. There is simply no
23
reason to believe that the Legislature’s concern for the privacy rights of California citizens was
24
limited based on the happenstance of which courtroom hosts the litigation that threatens those
25
rights.
26
Unsurprisingly, JFL’s authority does not support its interpretation. See McKinney v. Dept.
27
of Treasury (C.D.Cal. 1996) 78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-7105 (federal question case where IRS summoned
28
79
EXH K
-7-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
71 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:94
1 records pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 7602(a), thus state privileges would not apply). Also
2 distinguishable is Rigsby v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. CV1102766 SJO PJWx, 2011 WL
3 13143544, at *5 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 2, 2011), aff’d, 531 Fed. Appx. 811 (9th Cir. 2013). There,
4 plaintiffs did not raise a state-created privilege in connection with the disclosure of certain
5 information, but rather claimed that certain state-law violations by defendant, namely defendant’s
6 release of juvenile records, violated certain federal rights. Id.
7 Finally, JFL relies on RBS Secs., Inc. v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc., Case No. 12CV2132-JM
8 MDD, 2012 WL 3957894, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2012) (adopting the statutory interpretation
9 argument urged here by JFL). The Court should decline to follow RBS. The Court there did not
10 apply, or even cite, the last antecedent rule. Because the analysis of RBS overlooked controlling
11 California rules of statutory construction, the Court should find it to be unpersuasive.
12
3. EA Client Identities and Fee Agreements Are Confidential Attorney-
13 Client Communications Under Both California and Federal Law
14 (a) Client Identities and Fee Agreements are Privileged

Confidential Communications under both California Law and
15 Federal Law
16 JFL does not dispute that the disputed information is privileged and protected under state
17 law. It could not successfully do so. Hooser v. Suprior Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1006 (2000);
18 see also People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender, 212 Cal. App. 4th 614, 648 (2012) (where known facts
19 regarding an attorney's representation are such that the disclosure of the client’s identity would
20 betray personal, confidential information regarding the client, the existence of the attorney-client
21 relationship is privileged). The facts of this case fall squarely within the exception, so client
22 identities and their consultation with Avenatti must be kept confidential until and unless they
23 decide to file a lawsuit.
24 Contrary to JFL’s argument, this client-identity rule also is recognized under federal law.
25 See United States v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1424 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that client identity and
26 nature of fee arrangement are protected from disclosure where disclosure would compromise
27 confidential communications between attorney and such disclosure would convey information
28 tantamount to a confidential communication); In re Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury, 39

80
EXH K
-8-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
72 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:95
1 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 1994) (acknowledging that where identification of the client conveys
2 information which is itself privileged, the client’s identity is likewise privileged). JFL’s cited
3 authority describes the general rule of attorney-client privilege, but fails to address or analyze the
4 well-recognized exception to the rule which protects EA client identities and fee agreements in
5 this case.
6 JFL maintains that its rights as a judgment creditor afford it a “wide scope of inquiry”
7 concerning EA’s business and property affairs. However, this broad scope of inquiry does not
8 allow it to abrogate the substantive rights and privileges of third parties, particularly EA’s clients
9 and employees. A judgment debtor generally is entitled to assert the same privileges that a trial
10 witness may assert as a basis for refusing to respond to requests for information and may refuse to
11 respond to requests for privileged information. Hooser v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 997,
12 1004 (2000).
13 II. CONCLUSION
14 For all of the foregoing reasons, EA respectfully requests that the Court (i) grant the
15 requested Protective Order; and (ii) grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
16 and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
17 Dated: August 1, 2018 RAINES FELDMAN LLP
18

Hamid R. Rafatjoo
Eagan Avenatti LLP
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
81
EXH K
-9-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
73 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:96

1800 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify):

REPLY OF EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, TO JASON FRANK LAW PLC’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in
the manner stated below:
August 1, 2018 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the

 Jeffrey W Broker jbroker@brokerlaw.biz
 Christopher Celentino chris.celentino@dinsmore.com,
caron.burke@dinsmore.com;SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM
ruptcy.com
82
June 2012 EXH K F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
524 Filed
6-108/01/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/01/18
74 of16:57:31
95 Page Desc
ID #:97

On (date) _______________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) August 1, 2018 I served the
filed.
Via Overnight Delivery

The Honorable Catherine E. Bauer
411 West Fourth Street, Suite 5165
8/1/2018 Bambi Clark /s/ Bambi Clark

83
June 2012 EXH K F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
EXHIBIT "L" 84
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
76 of12:55:58
95 Page Desc
ID #:99
1 Daniel J. Weintraub - SBN 132111

James R. Selth - SBN 123420
2 Nina Z. Javan – SBN 271392
4 Telephone: (310) 207-1494
Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
5 jim@wsrlaw.net

JASON FRANK LAW, PLC
7
8
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA DIVISION
10
11
In re Chapter 11
12
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Bankruptcy No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
13
Debtor.
14 REPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR RE
EFFORTS TO MEET AND CONFER RE
15 EAGAN AVENATTI LLP’S MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER
16

Time: 10:00 am.
18 Courtroom: 5D
19
20
21
22 At the request of Judgment Creditor, Jason Frank Law, PLC (“JFL”), on Monday, July 30,
23 counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding the Document Subpoena for the Judgment
24 Debtor Examination (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A). JFL has offered to modify and
25 narrow its requests in the manner set forth below without prejudice to its rights to later seek such
26 documents in the future. This includes a proposed procedure that will allow Eagan Avenatti, LLP
27 (“Judgment Debtor” or “EA”) to avoid producing its retainer agreements, which is the primary focus
28 of its Motion for Protective Order and sole focus of its Reply to JFL’s Opposition to the Motion for
85
EXH L
-1-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
77 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:100
1 Protective Order. As set forth in JFL’s Opposition, the retainer agreements are not privileged under
2 the applicable federal law and notice to consumers is not required. Nevertheless, JFL believes the
3 proposed procedure below (see Requests Nos. 11, 14 and 24) will allow JFL to obtain the
4 information it needs to examine Judgment Debtor’s accounts receivables and other assets without the
5 necessity of producing the retainer agreements.
6 For the Court’s benefit, JFL is providing its proposed modifications and clarifications to the
7 Subpoena which JFL presented to EA’s counsel. JFL notes that the majority of document requests
8 do not relate to client records. EA has not indicated what documents it is willing to produce (other
9 than its publicly filed bankruptcy schedules, which were the only documents tendered at the initial
10 Judgment Debtor Examination).
11 1. Bank Statements (2013 to the Present). JFL will agree to narrow this request to
12 the unredacted bank statements for EA, Avenatti & Associates, APC (“AA”) and Michael
13 Avenatti (“Avenatti”) from January 2013 to the present. To the extent EA paid money to or
14 received money from any other entities owned in whole or in part by Avenatti or Michael
15 Eagan (“Eagan”), then JFL will agree that those entities’ bank statements do not need to be
16 produced (subject to our right to later request those bank statements); so long as EA and
17 Avenatti identify the affiliated entities which received money from or paid money to EA.
18 This can be done with a list of any entities owned, in whole or in part, by Avenatti during the
19 time period 2013 to the Present (or in the case of Eagan, up until the time of his departure).
20
21 2. EA Financial Statements (2013 to Present). This will include standard financial
22 statements, such as profit & loss statements and balance sheets, as well as the “ledgers” that
23 Avenatti testified he maintains to keep track of amounts owed to his affiliated entities, such
24 as the hours worked by EA employees on AA matters, and loans to and from affiliated
25 entities.
26 //
27 //
28
86
EXH L- 2 -
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
78 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:101
1 3. EA Lease Agreement. JFL will agree to narrow this request so that it only requires the
2 production of EA’s current lease agreements, with the amendments currently in effect, as
3 well as any personal or corporate guaranties and uncured default notices.
5 4. EA Partnership Agreement. JFL will narrow this request so that it only requires the
6 production of EA’s Partnership Agreement(s) and amendments, as well as the documents
7 relating to Michael Eagan’s withdrawal from the partnership, including but not limited to any
8 agreements related thereto (such as distribution or indemnification agreements) and
9 communications concerning Mr. Eagan’s withdrawal.
10
11 5. EA Assets. JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can comply with this request by creating a
12 document identifying EA’s current assets, including but not limited to, interests in real estate,
13 personal property, intellectual property, accounts receivable and general intangibles. For
14 furniture and artwork, there will need to be specific descriptions so that JFL can identify the
15 property (i.e., 6 desktop computers located at Irvine office, two conference tables, two prints
16 hanging in reception and copy room, etc.)
17
18 6. EA Liabilities. JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can comply with this request by
19 creating and producing a document listing EA’s current liabilities.
20
21 7. EA Insurance Policies (2013 to Present). This will include all insurance policies for EA, or
22 any business owned by or affiliated with EA, including any endorsements or riders attached
23 thereto.
24
25 8. EA Federal & State Tax Returns (2013 to Present). This will include the complete tax
26 returns, including all attachments and K-1 Schedules
27
28 9. EA Profit & Loss Statements (2013 to Present). This should be covered by Request 2.
87
EXH L
-3-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
79 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:102
1 10. EA Balance Sheets (2013 to Present). This should be covered by Request 2.
3 11. EA Client List (2014 to Present). JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can comply with this
4 request by preparing a list of EA clients from 2014 to the present. To the extent that the
5 client has not filed a lawsuit, JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can identify the client by a
6 Pseudonym (e.g. John Doe 1), the name of the potential adversary, and a general description
7 of the claim without identifying details (e.g., personal injury, employment discrimination,
8 etc.), subject to JFL’s right to request further information at a later date.
10 12. Currently Pending Lawsuits. JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can comply with this
11 request by preparing a list of the currently pending cases in which EA, AA, Avenatti or any
12 other entity controlled in whole or in part by Avenatti represents a client by the Case Name,
13 Court, Case No. and the Party Represented.
14
15 13. Former EA Cases Currently Pending. JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti can comply
16 with this request by preparing a list of the currently pending cases in which EA, AA,
17 Avenatti or any entity controlled in whole or in part by Avenatti formerly represented a client
18 (but no longer does) by the Case Name, Court, Case No. and the Party Represented.
19
20 14. EA Retainer Agreements: As noted in our Opposition to the Motion for Protective Order,
21 the retainer agreements are not privileged under the applicable federal law. However,
22 without waiving our rights to seek such documents at a later date, JFL will agree that EA’s
23 counsel, Hamid Rafatjoo, can prepare a summary of the compensation terms that he will
24 personally verify is accurate. This will include the following information:
25 a. The Client Name or the assigned Pseudonym for the Client if a case has not been filed
26 (See Request 11)
27 b. The Name of the Defendant(s)
28 c. The Date of the Agreement

88
EXH L
-4-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
80 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:103
1 d. Whether the case is hourly, contingency or hybrid
2 e. The hourly rates (if applicable)
3 f. The fixed fee (if applicable)
4 g. The contingency percentage (if applicable) including any adjustments to the
5 percentage (e.g. 25% if case settles within 90 days, 35% if case settles 90 days before
6 trial and 40% if case goes to trial)
7 h. How costs are handled (e.g. paid by Client, reimbursed from recovery)
8 i. Any other compensation arrangements (e.g., shares in company, percentage of book
9 deals or appearance fees, etc.)
10
11 15. EA Fee Sharing Agreements. This includes all fee sharing agreements currently in effect.
12
13 16. EA Other Compensation Agreements. This includes any other agreements currently in
14 effect in which EA may be entitled to money.
15
16 17. EA Rent or Sublease Agreements. JFL will agree to narrow this request so that it only
17 includes rent or sublease agreements that entitle(d) EA to receive rent payments from
18 January 1, 2018 to the present.
19
20 18. EA Loan Agreements. This includes any loan agreements between EA, on the one hand,
21 and Avenatti, Eagan, or any entities owned, in whole or in party by Avenatti or Eagan on the
22 other hand, from January 1, 2013 to the present. With respect to any other loan agreements,
23 JFL will agree that they only need to be produced if payments have been made or will be
24 owed after January 1, 2018.
25
26 19. EA Third-Party Beneficiary Agreements. JFL will agree to narrow this request so that it
27 will only requires the production of agreements in which EA was or may be entitled to
28 receive money as a third-party beneficiary after January 1, 2018.

89
EXH L
-5-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
81 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:104
1 20. EA Financing Agreements. JFL will agree to narrow this request so that it will only require
2 the production of financing agreements that are or were in effect after January 1, 2013.
4 21. EA Payments to Avenatti or Avenatti Entities Over $1,000: It is our understanding that
5 EA’s Bank Statements will include copies of all checks and wire transfers. To the extent
6 there was a payment over $1,000 that is not reflected in the Bank Statements, then those
7 payments will need to be produced.
9 22. EA Payments to Eagan or Eagan Entities Over $1,000: Same as Request 20.
10
11 23. EA Agreements with AA. This includes any and all agreements between EA and AA,
12 including but not limited to loan agreements, finance agreements, fee sharing agreements,
13 employment agreements and any other agreements.
14
15 24. AA and Avenatti Retainer Agreements: To the extent there is a retainer agreement with
16 AA or Avenatti, JFL will agree that EA’s counsel, Hamid Rafatjoo, can prepare a summary
17 of the compensation terms that he will personally verify is accurate, subject to our right to
18 request the production of the agreement in the future. The summary will include the same
19 information as Request 14. In addition, counsel will identify whether EA is listed anywhere
20 on the agreement, including but not limited to the paragraph description of the parties to the
21 Retainer Agreement, the signature block, or the contact information (including email
22 addresses “eaganavenatti.com” or “eoalaw.com”).
23
24 25. EA Assignment of Fees (2013 to Present). To the extent EA, AA or Avenatti have assigned
25 fees or the right to fees to any third parties from January 1, 2013 to the Present, JFL requests
26 that EA and Avenatti produce the agreements and communications related thereto (including
27 emails).
28
90
EXH L
-6-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
82 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:105
1 26. EA Fee Dispute Documents: JFL will agree to narrow this request to documents and
2 communications relating to fee disputes that are or were not resolved after January 1, 2018.
4 27. EA Payments over $1,000. Again, it is our understanding that EA’s Bank Statements will
5 include this information. To the extent such transactions are not included in the Bank
6 Statements, those payments will need to be produced.
8 28. EA Checks to “Cash” (2013 to Present). JFL’s understanding is that EA’s Bank
9 Statements will identify any checks written to “Cash.” However, EA will still need to
10 produce any documents or ledgers which indicate the recipient of the cash payment.
11
12 29. EA Withdrawals or Countercheck to “Cash” (2013 to Present). Again, JFL’s

13 understanding is that EA’s Bank Statements will reflect this information. However, to the
14 extent the recipient of the withdrawal is not identified, EA and Avenatti will need to identify
15 the recipient.
16
17 30. All Agreements with Gerald Tobin. JFL stands by this request without modification.
18
19 31. All Documents with and Communications with Gerald Tobin. JFL stands by this request
20 without modification.
21
22 32. Agreements with X-Law Group and/or Filippo Marchino. JFL stands by this request
23 without modification.
24
25 33. Documents/Communication about Judgment. JFL will agree that this request only
26 requires the production of non-privileged documents and communications concerning or
27 relating to the judgment in favor of JFL, including but not limited to emails, notes, letters,
28 memoranda and text messages. JFL will agree that EA and Avenatti do not need to produce
91
EXH L
-7-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
83 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:106
1 court filings relating to the Judgment or prepare a privilege log of privileged
2 communications, unless the communication is with a party who is not an attorney
3 representing EA.
4
5 34. Documents Concerning Maseco. JFL will withdraw this request, without waiving its right
6 to request such documents in the future.
7
8 35. EA Agreements with Any Entity or Controlled, in whole or in part, by Avenatti. JFL
9 clarified that this is only seeking such agreements in which EA is one of the parties.
10
11
36. EA’s QuickBooks Account Records (2013 to Present). JFL stands by this request without
12
modification.
13
14
37. EA’s Payroll Records (2013 to Present). JFL stands by this request without modification.
15
As indicated, the names of the employees and their compensation have already been
16
disclosed in bankruptcy schedules. Moreover, JFL needs to know the names of individuals
17
on the payrolls to determine whether any payments were made by EA to non-EA employees.
18
19
Respectfully submitted,
20
21 WEINTRAUB & SELTH, APC
22 /s/ James R. Selth

Dated: August ___, 2018 ________________________________
23 Daniel J. Weintraub
James R. Selth
24 Nina Z. Javan
Attorneys for Judgment Creditor,
25 JASON FRANK LAW, PLC
26
27
28
92
EXH L
-8-
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
84 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:107
EXHIBIT "A" 93
EXH L
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
85 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:108
94
EXH L
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
86 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:109



document;
DOCUMENTS

following:



EXH L
95
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
87 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:110



liabilities of EA.



2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2016, 2017 and 2018.


present.
party.

compensation.

96
EXH L
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
88 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:111

beneficiary.
party.

Associates, APC.

Michael Q. Eagan.





97
EXH L
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
89 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:112



Maseco.


by EA in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2017 and 2018.
98
EXH L
(Case
B2550 (FormCase
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
2550 8:17-bk-11961-CB
– Subpoena
p pp and Testifyy at aDoc
to Appear Document
525
g or Trial Filed
Hearing in a 6-108/03/18
pFiled
y Case 09/11/18
Bankruptcy Entered
or Adversary Page
08/03/18
y Proceeding) 90g of
g) ((Page 3)) 12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:113
the demand.
hearing, or trial.
is resolved.
…
99
EXH L
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
91 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:114

11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1170, Los Angeles, CA 90025
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled REPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR RE EFFORTS TO
MEET AND CONFER RE EAGAN AVENATTI LLP’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER will be served or was
served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated
below:
Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On August
3, 2018, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the

On N/A, 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 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 document is filed.
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on August 3, 2018, I served the
filed.
Federal Express overnight delivery to Chambers of Hon. Catherine Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Court, Santa Ana
Division
August 3, 2018 Sondra Solish /s/ Sondra Solish

100
June 2012 EXH L F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
525 Filed
6-108/03/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
08/03/18
92 of12:55:58
95 Page ID
Desc
#:115
Michael Avenatti mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com, jregnier@eaganavenatti.com

Mikel R Bistrow mikel.bistrow@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
Peter W Bowie peter.bowie@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
Christopher Celentino chris.celentino@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com;
SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM
Sara Chenetz schenetz@perkinscoie.com, dlax@perkinscoie.com;cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;
mduncan@perkinscoie.com
Fahim Farivar ffarivar@foley.com, amcdow@foley.com;khernandez@foley.com
Amir Gamliel amir-gamliel-9554@ecf.pacerpro.com, cmallahi@perkinscoie.com;DocketLA@perkinscoie.com;
JDerosier@perkinscoie.com
David B Golubchik dbg@lnbyb.com, dbg@ecf.inforuptcy.com
Michael J Hauser michael.hauser@usdoj.gov
Mark S Horoupian mhoroupian@sulmeyerlaw.com, ppenn@sulmeyerlaw.com;mhoroupian@ecf.inforuptcy.com;
dperez@sulmeyerlaw.com;ppenn@ecf.inforuptcy.com
James KT Hunter jhunter@pszjlaw.com
Sheri Kanesaka sheri.kanesaka@fnf.com, Christine.hipp@fnf.com
Isaac Marcushamer
Ashley M McDow amcdow@foley.com, Khernandez@foley.com;Ffarivar@foley.com
Malhar S Pagay mpagay@pszjlaw.com, mpagay@pszjlaw.com
R Gibson Pagter gibson@ppilawyers.com, ecf@ppilawyers.com;pagterrr51779@notify.bestcase.com
Misty A Perry Isaacson misty@ppilawyers.com, ecf@ppilawyers.com;perryisaacsonmr51779@notify.bestcase.com
Thomas J Polis tom@polis-law.com, paralegal@polis-law.com;r59042@notify.bestcase.com
Hamid R Rafatjoo hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com, bclark@raineslaw.com;cwilliams@raineslaw.com
Robert M Saunders rsaunders@pszjlaw.com, rsaunders@pszjlaw.com
James R Selth jim@wsrlaw.net, jselth@yahoo.com;brian@wsrlaw.net;vinnet@ecf.inforuptcy.com
Najah J Shariff najah.shariff@usdoj.gov, USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov
David H Stein dstein@wilentz.com
Michael K Symons mike@symonsmarkwith.com, mike@symonsmarkwith.com
United States Trustee (SA) ustpregion16.sa.ecf@usdoj.gov
101
EXH L
EXHIBIT "M" 102

Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
498 Filed
6-107/11/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/11/18
94 of15:08:17
95 Page ID
Desc
#:117
2 FILED & ENTERED

3
JUL 11 2018
4
BY firman DEPUTY CLERK
6
10

13 Debtor. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART AMENDED MOTION FOR
14 ASSIGNMENT AND RESTRAINING ORDER
15 Date: July 11, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Address: 411 W. 4th St, Santa Ana, CA 92701
17
18
19
A hearing was held on July 11, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Catherine E.
20
Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 5D
21
located at 411 West Fourth St., Santa Ana, CA, on the Amended Motion for Entry of
22
Assignment and Restraining Order filed on June 20, 2018 as docket #470 by Jason Frank
23
Law, PLC (“Motion”). Appearances were made as noted on the record.
24
Having reviewed the pleadings and heard the discussion on the record and with good
25
cause shown,
26
IT IS ORDERED:
27
1. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
28 103
EXH M
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
498 Filed
6-107/11/18
Filed 09/11/18
EnteredPage
07/11/18
95 of15:08:17
95 Page ID
Desc
#:118
2 2. The Motion is granted as follows:
3 Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“Debtor”) is hereby restrained from assigning, encumbering
4 or in any way transferring any proceeds, attorney’s fees, costs, rights to payments
5 and accounts receivable it is or may be entitled to receive from the lawsuits and
6 clients listed on Exhibit A to the Frank Declaration attached to the Motion (the
7 “Cases”), as well as any rent payments from Debtor’s tenants.
8 Debtor shall file with the Court and serve on Jason Frank Law, PLC, the Internal
9 Revenue Service, the Official Committee of Creditors, and their respective counsel,
10 a notice of any hearing or proceeding regarding attorney’s fees in any of the Cases
11 (regardless of whether Debtor is designated as a possible payee). Notice shall be
12 filed and served at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing or proceeding.
13 Debtor shall also file with the Court and serve on Jason Frank Law, PLC, the
14 Internal Revenue Service, the Official Committee of Creditors, and their respective
15 counsel, a notice of receipt of any monies in relation to the Cases, regardless of
16 whether the payment is made to Debtor, Avenatti & Associates, Michael Avenatti, or
17 Michael Eagan, or any entity controlled by Debtor, Avenatti & Associates, Michael
18 Avenatti, or Michael Eagan.
19 3. To the extent the Motion is not granted in Paragraph 2, it is denied without prejudice.
20
21 ###
22
23
Date: July 11, 2018
24
25
26
27
28 104
EXH M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PREVIOUS CASE NUMBER: 8:18−mc−00027 UA
CURRENT CASE NUMBER: 8:18−cv−01644 VAP

PLAINTIFF(S)
(KESx)
v.
DEFENDANT(S).
X NOTICE OF NEW CASE NUMBER
X NOTICE OF JUDGE ASSIGNMENT
X This case is hereby converted from case type MC to case type CV . This action is necessary because:
the incorrect case type was used at case opening.

X subsequent filings have changed the nature of the case.
A new case number has therefore been assigned to this case. The previous number, 8:18−mc−00027 UA is
hereby terminated.
X This case has been assigned to: X District Judge Virginia A. Phillips
X Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott
Most district judges in the Central District of California refer all discovery-related motions to the assigned
magistrate judge pursuant to General Order No. 05-07. If this case has been assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real,
discovery-related motions should generally be noticed for hearing before the assigned district judge.
Otherwise, discovery-related motions should generally be noticed for hearing before the assigned magistrate
judge. Please refer to the assigned judges’ Procedures and Schedules, available on the Court’s website at
www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges-requirements, for additional information.
If this Notice indicates that any judge has been newly assigned to the case, any party who has previously
filed documents electronically in the case but not yet provided mandatory chambers copies of those
documents pursuant to L.R. 5-4.5 must immediately provide such copies to the newly assigned judge(s). In
addition, the party who filed the case-initiating document in this case must serve a copy of this Notice on
every party served with the case-initiating document who has not yet appeared in the case.
As a result of the change(s) listed above,

the case number on all future documents must read as follows:
8:18−cv−01644 VAP (KESx)
All future documents must be filed under this case number,
and must reflect the full case number as formatted here, including all initials.
Clerk, U.S. District Court

September 12, 2018 By /s/ Edwin Sambrano
Date Deputy Clerk
CV−15 (04/16) NOTICE OF NEW CASE NUMBER / JUDGE ASSIGNMENT


CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KESx Date: September 24, 2018
Title: In Re Eagan Avenatti, LLP
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado CS 9/24/18

Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

James Selth Michael Avenatti (by telephone)
PROCEEDINGS: Status Conference re Judgment

Creditor’s Motion to Set Hearing Date on
Judgment Debtor’s Motion for a
Protective Order
Case is called. Counsel state their appearances on the record. Peter Bowie, counsel for
Unsecured Creditors Committee in the bankruptcy case also states his telephonic appearance.
Status conference is held. The hearing on the Motion is set for October 10, 2018, at
10:00am. The parties shall file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, by October 3, 2018.
00 : 10
Initials of Preparer JD
1 Sara L. Chenetz, State Bar No. 206936

2 Amir Gamliel, State Bar No. 268121
AGamliel@perkinscoie.com
3 PERKINS COIE LLP
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
Telephone: 310.788.9900
5 Facsimile: 310.788.3399
6 Attorneys for Jason Frank Law, PLC
7 Jason Frank
Scott Sims
8 Frank Sims & Stolper LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd #855
9 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.201.2400
10
Attorneys for Jason Frank Law, PLC
11

14 LOS ANGELES DIVISION
15 In re Case No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
16 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE
17 Debtor. FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
18 AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
JASON M. FRANK IN SUPPORT
19 THEREOF
20 Date: EXPEDITED HEARING SOUGHT
Time: 2:00 p.m.
21 Place: Courtroom 8A
350 West 1st Street
23 JUDGE: HON. VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
24
25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that judgment creditor, Jason Frank Law, PLC
26 hereby moves this Court for entry of an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(d),
27 withdrawing the automatic reference of post-dismissal proceedings currently
28 pending in bankruptcy case, In re Eagan Avenatti, LLP, No. 8:17-11961-CB.
141424246.1
-1-
1 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this motion is based on this

2 notice of motion and motion, the accompanying declaration of Jason M. Frank and
3 its exhibits, the memorandum of points and authorities set forth below, the prior
4 proceedings in this case, and all judicially noticeable facts.
5
6 Dated: September 27, 2018 PERKINS COIE LLP

7
By: /s/ Sara L. Chenetz_________________
8 Sara L. Chenetz
9 Attorneys for Judgment Creditor
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141424246.1
-2-

2
I. INTRODUCTION
3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(d), Judgment Creditor Jason Frank Law, PLC
4 (“JFL”) requests this Court withdraw the automatic reference of the post-dismissal
5 proceedings in the bankruptcy case, In re Eagan Avenatti, LLP, No. 8:17-11961-
6 CB, currently pending before the Honorable Catherine A. Bauer (the “Bankruptcy
7 Court”). The post-dismissal proceedings relate to the enforcement of a $10 Million
8 judgment in favor of JFL against Judgment Debtor Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“EA”),
9 entered by the Bankruptcy Court on May 22, 2018 (the “Judgment”). [Declaration
10 of Jason M. Frank (“Frank Decl.”), Exh. A.] The Bankruptcy Court does not
11 oppose this withdrawal request and has indicated it intends to abstain from further
12 proceedings to enforce the Judgment because it believes “[t]he parties have other
13 better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to them for resolution of their
14 ongoing issues.” [Id., Exh. B.]
15 The Judgment was entered due to EA’s breach of a structured settlement that
16 EA entered into with JFL, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and certain
17 unsecured creditors as a condition to the Bankruptcy Court granting EA’s motion to
18 dismiss its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. [Frank Decl., ¶ 9, Exhs. C, D.] Pursuant to
19 the agreed terms of the structured settlement and dismissal order, the Bankruptcy
20 Court retained post-dismissal jurisdiction to resolve matters concerning the
21 structured settlement as provided under LBR 1017-2(f). [Id., Exh. C, § 3, Exh. D, ¶
22 10.] After the dismissal, EA failed to make settlement payments owed to JFL and
23 the IRS, which resulted in the Bankruptcy Court entering the Judgment in favor of
24 JFL and the United States of America filing a motion for contempt against EA on
25 behalf of the IRS. [Id., ¶¶ 12-13, Exhs. A, E.]
26 Pursuant to its post-dismissal jurisdiction, the Bankruptcy Court entered a
27 series of orders relating to the enforcement of JFL’s Judgment, including a Writ of
28 Execution, an Order to Appear for a Judgment Debtor Exam (“ORAP”) and related
141424246.1
-1-
1 Subpoena to Produce Documents (the “ORAP Subpoena”), and a Restraining Order

2 preventing EA from dissipating its assets. [Id., Exhs. F, G, H, I.] However, on
3 August 30, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Notice of Intent to Abstain from
4 any further proceedings in the dismissed bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
5 305(a). [Frank Decl., Exh. B.]
6 The Bankruptcy Court found that “the interests of creditors and the Debtor
7 [EA] would be better served if the Court abstains” because “[t]he structured
8 settlement in this case, which resulted in dismissal, consensually altered the parties’
9 positions in ways that make it untenable to continue in bankruptcy court” and “[t]he
10 parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to them for
11 resolution of their ongoing issues.” [Frank Decl., Exh. B.] At the time, the
12 Bankruptcy Court had a number of pending motions before it, including EA’s
13 motion for a protective order seeking to quash the ORAP Subpoena and the IRS’s
14 motion for contempt.
15 After receiving the Notice of Intent to Abstain, JFL registered its Judgment
16 before this District Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1963. [Frank Decl., Exh. J.] JFL
17 thereafter filed a Motion to Set a Hearing Date on EA’s Motion for Protective
18 Order so that JFL could move forward with the ORAP. [Doc. No. 6.] The matter
19 was assigned to this Court and U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, Case No.
20 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES. [Doc. No. 8.]
21 On September 24, 2018, Judge Scott held a status conference in which she
22 indicated she is “ready, willing and able” to rule on EA’s motion for protective
23 order and set a hearing date for October 10, 2018. [Frank Decl., ¶ 24.] However,
24 during the status conference, EA suggested it may challenge whether the motion is
25 properly before this Court. [Id.] At a subsequent hearing on its Notice of Intent to
26 Abstain, the Bankruptcy Court indicated its approval of having Judge Scott and this
27 Court oversee these matters and agreed to postpone entering its abstention order so
28 JFL could file this motion withdrawing the reference. [Id., ¶ 25.] The Bankruptcy
141424246.1
-2-
1 Court continued the hearing until October 10, 2018 to ensure that JFL would still
2 have a venue to enforce the Bankruptcy Court’s orders (such as the Restraining
3 Order) until the proceedings were transferred to this Court.
4 Consequently, to resolve any questions regarding the propriety of this Court
5 and Judge Scott ruling on these matters, JFL requests the Court withdraw the
6 reference from the Bankruptcy Court. This will ensure a seamless transition of the
7 proceedings to this Court and prevent EA from delaying enforcement of the
8 Judgment. The United States of America on behalf of the IRS does not oppose this
9 motion. [Frank Decl., ¶ 26.]
10 II. WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE IS WARRANTED
11 A. This Court Has the Authority to Enforce the Judgment.
12 Once a judgment is registered, the judgment “shall have the same effect as a
13 judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced
14 in like manner.” 28 USC § 1983; Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d
15 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010).
16 In the present matter, the Judgment was entered on May 22, 2018 and EA did
17 not appeal the Judgment or oppose entry of the Judgment. [Frank Decl., ¶ 3, Exh.
18 A.] As a result, the Judgment became a final federal judgment no later than
19 fourteen days thereafter. Fed. R. Bank. Proc. Rule 8002 (a notice of appeal must be
20 filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment). JFL registered the Judgment with
21 this Court on September 4, 2018. [Frank Decl., Exh. J.] Consequently, this Court
22 properly has the authority to enforce the Judgment as if it was entered by this Court.
23 28 USC § 1983; Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1123.
24 The question becomes what happens to the orders and subpoenas already
25 issued by the Bankruptcy Court. As indicated above, the Bankruptcy Court has
26 indicated it intends to abstain from any further proceedings because it believes
27 “[t]he parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to them for
28 resolution of their ongoing issues.” [Frank Decl., Exh. B.] That has left the parties
141424246.1
-3-
1 with pending motions regarding the enforcement of the ORAP subpoena, the
2 Restraining Order and the structured settlement that need a venue to be heard. EA
3 has indicated it will not voluntarily consent to have those proceedings transferred to
4 this Court. Consequently, withdrawing the reference so that the proceedings are
5 now before this Court will prevent the Bankruptcy Court’s intent to abstain from
6 being abused as a means to delay enforcement of the Judgment.
7 B. The Standards for Withdrawal of the Reference.
8 Bankruptcy jurisdiction is initially conferred on district courts, which
9 exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and original but
10 not exclusive jurisdiction over proceeding arising under or arising in or relating to a
11 bankruptcy case. All cases commenced in this District under the Bankruptcy Code
12 are automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court. General Order 13-05; 28
13 U.S.C. § 1334(a); In re McCowan, 296 B.R. 1, 2 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003). Consistent
14 with this, “a district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or
15 proceeding ... on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause
16 shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
17 1. The Motion to Withdraw the Reference is Timely.
18 A motion to withdraw the reference should be made “as promptly as possible
19 in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceedings.” Sec. Farms v. Int'l
20 Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th
21 Cir. 1997). The “timeliness standard is flexible and case-specific and must be
22 administered in a manner that fosters the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.”
23 Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 462 B.R. 457, 468
24 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation omitted).
25 Two successive and recent events lead to the filing of this Motion. One, the
26 Bankruptcy Court issued its Notice of Intent to Abstain on August 30, 2018, after
27 presiding over Judgment enforcement proceedings for about three months. Two, at
28 the status conference before Judge Scott on September 24, 2018, EA indicated for
141424246.1
-4-
1 the first time it may question the propriety of this Court presiding over the
2 previously pending motions before the Bankruptcy Court. Consequently, there can
3 be no dispute that JFL promptly made this request when the need for the
4 withdrawal of the reference came to light.
5 2. Good Cause Exists for the Withdrawal of the Reference.
6 “In determining whether cause exists to withdraw a case or proceeding from
7 a bankruptcy court, a district court should consider the efficient use of judicial
8 resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration,
9 the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Sec. Farms v. Int'l
10 Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th
11 Cir. 1997); Everett v. Art Brand Studios, LLC, 556 B.R. 437, 441 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
12 These factors all favor withdrawal of the reference.
13 First, this is the most efficient use of judicial resources. For example, as
14 established above, now that the Judgment has been registered before this Court, this
15 Court has the authority to issue an ORAP and subpoena for records from EA. 28
16 USC § 1983; Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1123. But the Bankruptcy Court has already
17 issued the ORAP, and the judgment debtor exam has already commenced. [Frank
18 Decl., ¶ 19, Exh. G.] Further, EA’s motion for protective order (which seeks to
19 avoid producing documents in response to the ORAP Subpoena) has already been
20 fully briefed by the parties. [Doc. No. 6.] It would be extremely inefficient to start
21 over again and have this Court issue a new ORAP and subpoena and require the
22 parties to re-brief EA’s motion for protective order. In contrast, withdrawing the
23 reference would remove any question that this matter is properly before Judge Scott
24 on October 10.
25 Second, the Bankruptcy Court has already issued a Restraining Order against
26 EA. [Frank Decl., Exh. I.] Withdrawing the reference would ensure that any
27 violations of the Restraining Order could be enforced in this Court. Otherwise, the
28 Bankruptcy Court would need to continue retaining jurisdiction simultaneously
141424246.1
-5-
1 with this Court to ensure the Restraining Order remained in effect, at least until JFL
2 obtained a similar order in this Court. Withdrawing the reference eliminates the
3 need for two courts overseeing these issues.
4 Third, requiring JFL to re-seek an ORAP, serve new subpoenas and re-brief
5 the pending motions would unnecessarily delay and drive up costs for the parties.
6 Withdrawing the reference so that the pending proceedings are transferred to this
7 Court eliminates this problem.
8 Fourth¸ given the Bankruptcy Court’s intent to abstain, the IRS likewise
9 needs a federal forum to address its motion for relief against EA. There is a
10 potential dispute between JFL and the IRS as to which entity has a priority lien on
11 EA’s assets. Withdrawing the reference so that this Court has all proceedings
12 before it will ensure a uniformity of administration.
13 Fifth, there is no improper forum shopping. This withdrawal request is
14 necessitated by the Bankruptcy Court’s intent to abstain from further proceedings.
15 The parties’ structured settlement and the dismissal order provided that the
16 Bankruptcy Court would retain post-dismissal jurisdiction to, among other things,
17 enter the Judgment in favor of JFL in the event EA defaulted on the settlement
18 payments. [Frank Decl., Exh. C, § 3.6; Exh. D, ¶ 10.] Consequently, the Judgment
19 is a federal judgment that is properly enforced in federal court. 28 USC § 1983;
20 Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1123. Given that the Bankruptcy Court decided on its own
21 accord that these enforcement proceedings are better suited for a non-bankruptcy
22 venue, JFL properly seeks to have these proceedings transferred to this Court where
23 it has now registered the Judgment.
24 III. CONCLUSION
25 For the foregoing reasons, JFL respectfully requests the Court withdraw the
26 reference of all remaining proceedings in the Bankruptcy Case and grant such other
27 and further relief as is just and proper.
28
141424246.1
-6-

2
By: /s/ Sara L. Chenetz________________
3 Sara L. Chenetz
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141424246.1
-7-

2 I, Jason M. Frank, declare as follows:
3 1. I am the owner and president of the Judgment Creditor, Jason Frank
4 Law, PLC (“JFL”). I am admitted to practice law before all federal and state courts
5 in the State of California, and I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of
6 California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, unless stated on
7 information and belief, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently
8 testify thereto.
9 2. I have been a member in good standing of the State Bar of California
10 since 1997. I received my J.D. degree from the University of Michigan in 1997,
11 and my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1994. I was formerly a
12 litigation partner at Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP. From February 2009
13 through May 20, 2016, I was an attorney at Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“EA”), either as
14 an employee or through a contract between JFL and EA. I am currently a partner
15 and founder of Frank Sims & Stolper LLP.
16 3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Final Judgment
17 Against EA in favor of JFL in the Amount of Ten Million Dollars (“Judgment”).
18 The Judgment was entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
19 District of California, the Honorable Judge Catherine A. Bauer presiding (the
20 “Bankruptcy Court”) on May 22, 2018 due to EA’s breach of a structured
21 settlement as set forth further below. EA did not appeal the Judgment.
22 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Bankruptcy
23 Court’s Notice of Intent to Abstain from further proceedings regarding the
24 enforcement of the Judgment filed on August 30, 2018.
25 Brief History of the EA Bankruptcy and Structured Settlement
26 5. EA is a law firm based in Newport Beach, California that primarily
27 represents clients in contingency matters. The managing partner of EA is Michael
28 Avenatti (“Avenatti”).
141424246.1
-8-
1 6. JFL is my professional law corporation. From November 1, 2013

2 through May 20, 2016, I worked at EA pursuant to an independent contractor
3 agreement between JFL and EA. EA failed to pay substantial sums of money owed
4 under the agreement. Accordingly, JFL filed a demand for arbitration for breach of
5 contract and fraud against EA which was scheduled to go forward on March 13,
6 2017.
7 7. On the eve of the arbitration, on March 10, 2017, EA consented to be
8 placed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, thereby preventing the arbitration from going
9 forward.
10 8. EA’s bankruptcy case was ultimately transferred to Judge Bauer.
11 9. During the bankruptcy proceedings, EA entered into a structured
12 settlement with JFL, the IRS and other creditors as a condition to the Bankruptcy
13 Court granting EA’s motion to dismiss its bankruptcy case. A true and correct copy
14 of the settlement between JFL and EA and related parties (the “JFL Settlement”) –
15 which was one of the agreements that was a part of the structured settlement – is
16 attached as Exhibit C.
17 10. Under the JFL Settlement, EA agreed that JFL would have an allowed
18 claim of $10 Million against EA (among other consideration), and in return JFL
19 would not oppose the dismissal of the bankruptcy case. [See Exhibit C, § 3.1.] EA
20 further agreed that if EA failed to timely make settlement payments to JFL after the
21 dismissal of the bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court would retain post-dismissal
22 jurisdiction to enter a judgment against EA in the amount of $10 Million. [Id., §
23 3.6.] The parties further agreed the Bankruptcy Court would retain jurisdiction to
24 effectuate its orders – as set forth in EA’s motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 343 at
25 29:9-10, Case No. No. 8:17-11961-CB.]
26 11. On May 15, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court approved the structured
27 settlement (including the JFL Settlement) and dismissed EA’s bankruptcy case,
28 retaining post-dismissal jurisdiction. A true and correct copy of the Order Granting
141424246.1
-9-
1 Motion Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case and Related Relief (the
2 “Structured Settlement and Dismissal Order”) is attached as Exhibit D.
3 EA Defaults on the Structured Settlement After the Dismissal of the
4 Bankruptcy Case
5 12. After the dismissal of the bankruptcy case, EA failed to pay the
6 amounts owed to JFL under the structured settlement. Accordingly, pursuant to the
7 terms of the Structured Settlement and Dismissal Order, the Bankruptcy Court
8 entered a final judgment against EA in the amount of $10 Million. See Exhibit A.
9 13. EA also defaulted on the payments owed to the IRS. Accordingly, the
10 United States of America on behalf of the IRS filed a Motion to Enforce Order and
11 Find Debtor in Contempt with the Bankruptcy Court. A true and correct copy of
12 that motion is attached as Exhibit E.
13 Post-Dismissal Proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court
14 14. Pursuant to its retention of post-dismissal jurisdiction, the Bankruptcy
15 Court issued a number of orders regarding the enforcement of the Judgment.
16 15. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Writ of
17 Execution issued by the Bankruptcy Court against EA on June 6, 2018.
18 16. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Order to
19 Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor (“ORAP”) entered on June 22, 2018.
20 17. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena to
21 appear and produce documents at the ORAP issued to Avenatti by JFL’s attorney
22 on June 23, 2018 (the “ORAP Subpoena.”)
23 18. Attached as Exhibit I is the Restraining Order issued by the
24 Bankruptcy Court on July 11, 2018.
25 19. Pursuant to the ORAP, Avenatti was required to appear for the
26 Judgment Debtor Examination on July 25, 2018 with the subpoenaed documents.
27 While Avenatti appeared on that date, he refused to produce any documents (other
28 than EA’s bankruptcy schedules) on the grounds that EA filed a motion for
141424246.1
-10-
1 protective order set to be heard at a later date. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the
2 examination to go forward, with the examination to be continued at a later date after
3 the document issues were resolved.
4 The Bankruptcy Court’s Notice of Intent to Abstain and the Registration of
5 the Judgment with this Court
6 20. EA’s motion for protective order and the IRS’s motion for contempt
7 were ultimately set to be heard on August 27, 2018. At that hearing, the
8 Bankruptcy Court indicated it intended to abstain from further proceedings because
9 it felt the judgment enforcement issues raised by the parties were better-suited for a
10 non-bankruptcy venue. Accordingly, on August 30, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court
11 filed its Notice of Intent to Abstain with a hearing scheduled for September 24,
12 2018.
13 21. Upon receipt of the Notice of Intent to Abstain, JFL registered its
14 Judgment in this District Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1963. A true and correct
15 copy of the Registration of Judgment is attached as Exhibit J.
16 22. On September 11, 2018, JFL filed a Motion to Set Hearing on EA’s
17 Motion for Protective Order so that the proceedings could move forward. [Doc No.
18 6.] The matter was assigned to this Court and U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen E.
19 Scott, Case No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES. [Doc. No. 8.]
20 23. Judge Scott set a status conference for September 24, 2018 at 9:00
21 a.m., an hour before the hearing in the Bankruptcy Court on the Notice of Intent to
22 Abstain.
23 24. At the status conference, Judge Scott indicated she was “ready, willing
24 and able” to hear EA’s motion for protective order and set a hearing date for
25 October 10, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., with supplemental briefing to be filed by October
26 3, 2018. [Doc No. 11.] During the status conference, Avenatti represented EA and
27 indicated that EA would potentially object to this Court hearing the motion given
28 that it was filed before the Bankruptcy Court.
141424246.1
-11-
EXHIBIT "A"
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
445 Filed
12-1
05/22/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 05/22/18
Page 2 of15:58:26
3 Page ID
Desc
#:140
1 Sara L. Chenetz, SBN 206936

2 Amir Gamliel, SBN 268121
AGamliel@perkinscoie.com FILED & ENTERED
3 Perkins Coie LLP
4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 MAY 22 2018
Tel: 310-788-9900
5 Fax: 310-788-3399 CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
6 Attorneys for Jason Frank Law, PLC BY mccall DEPUTY CLERK
10

13 Debtor. FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST EAGAN
AVENATTI, LLP AND IN FAVOR OF
14 JASON FRANK LAW, PLC, IN THE
AMOUNT OF TEN MILLION DOLLARS
15 AND NO CENTS
16
17
18 This Court, having entered its Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Eagan
19 Avenatti, LLP, and in Favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC in the Amount of Ten Million Dollars and No
20 Cents, on May 22, 2018 as Docket #444,
21 //
22 //
23 //
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
Exhibit A - Page13
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
445 Filed
12-1
05/22/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 05/22/18
Page 3 of15:58:26
3 Page ID
Desc
#:141
1 IT IS ORDERED:
2 (1) Judgment is issued and entered in the amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS AND NO
3 CENTS in favor of Jason Frank Law, PLC, and against Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
4 (2) This Judgment is final and not appealable pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Settlement
5 Agreement.
6 (3) In accordance with Section 23 of the Settlement Agreement, Jason Frank Law, PLC
7 shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in collecting
8 any and all sums due from Eagan Avenatti, LLP pursuant to the entered judgment.
9
10 ###
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Date: May 22, 2018
25
26
27
28
-2-
Exhibit A - Page14
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
554 Filed
12-2
08/30/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 08/30/18
Page 2 of13:51:33
3 Page ID
Desc
#:143
2 FILED & ENTERED

3
AUG 30 2018
4
BY le DEPUTY CLERK
6
10
13 Debtor. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ABSTAIN
14 Date: September 24, 2018

Time: 10:00 a.m.
15 Courtroom: 5D
Address: 411 W. 4th St,
17
18 Notice is given pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure § 2002(f)(2) that the
19 Court intends to abstain from any further proceedings in this dismissed bankruptcy case
1
20 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305(a).
21 //
22 //
23 //
24
25
26
27
1
28 The Court also gave notice of its intention to abstain at hearings held on August 27, 2018.
Exhibit B-Page15
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
554 Filed
12-2
08/30/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 08/30/18
Page 3 of13:51:33
3 Page ID
Desc
#:144
1 The Court believes that the interests of creditors and the Debtor would be better served
2 if the Court abstains. The structured settlement in this case, which resulted in dismissal,
3 consensually altered the parties’ positions in ways that make it untenable to continue in
4 bankruptcy court. The parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy venues available to
5 them for resolution of their ongoing issues.
6 ###
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Date: August 30, 2018
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit B-Page16
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASES
This Settlement Agreement and Releases (" Agreement") is entered into this 12th day of
December 2017 by and between Jason .Frank Law, PLC, a professional law corporation
organized in California ("JFL"), Jason Frank ("FRANK"), wi individual, Scott Sims ("SIMS"),
an individual, Andrew Stolper ("STOLPER"), an individual, and Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, a
limited liability partnership organized in California ("FSS") (collectively, the "JFL Parties"), on
the one hand, and Eagan Avenatti LLP ("EA"), a limited liability partnership organized in
California, Avenatti & Associates, APC ("A&A"), a professional corporation organized in
California, Michael Avenatti ("AVENATTI"), an individual, and Michael Eagan, an individual
("EAGAN") (collectively, the "EA Parties"), on the other hand. The JFL Parties and EA Parties
are collectively referred to as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, JFL and FRANK entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with
EA effective November I, 2013 (the "JFL Agreement") and prior to that time FRANK had been
an employee of EA;
WHEREAS, SIMS entered into an Employment Agreement with EA dated March I,

2014 (the "SIMS Employment Agreement");
WHEREAS, on or about February 28, 2016, JFL filed a Demand for Arbitration with
JAMS against EA asserting claims for damages and other remedies for breach of contract, which
demand was later amended to include claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief wid
punitive damages (the "JFL Arbitration");
WHEREAS, on or about May 20, 2016, JFL, FRANK, SIMS wid STOLPER ceased
practicing law at EA and formed a new law finn, FSS;
WHEREAS, the clients in the matters listed on Exhibit "A" (attached hereto)
(collectively, the "Matters") terminated EA as their counsel in the Matters and retained FSS as
their counsel in certain of the Matters;
WHEREAS, EA asserted attorneys' liens in the Matters and/or claimed it had the right to
recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the work performed at EA on the Matters;
WHEREAS, on or about July 22, 2016, EA filed a Demand for Arbitration with JAMS
against EA's former client, Kimberly Birbrower, seeking to recover fees and costs in the
Birbrower v. Ouom Foods. Inc. matter, which is one of the Matters (the "EA/Birbrower
Arbitration");
WHEREAS, on or about August 9, 2016, SIMS filed a Demand for Arbitration with
JAMS against EA seeking certain sums owed under the SIMS Employment Agreement,
including claims for breach of contract, fraud, accounting and constructive trust (the "SIMS
Arbitration");
IJ7774123 .8
Exhibit C-Page17
WHEREAS, on or about September 23, 2016, EA filed counterclaims against SIMS in

the SIMS Arbitration asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, violation of the CaJifornia
Uniform Trade Secret Act, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, conversion,
accounting, and constructive trust;
WHEREAS, on or about September 12, 2016, EA filed counterclaims against JFL in the
JFL Arbitration asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
duty of loyalty, conversion, accounting, constructive trust and tortious interference;
WHEREAS, on or about December 15, 2016, EA filed a complaint in California Superior

Court, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-00892564-CU-BC-CJC against its fo1mer client,
William Scott Callaway, seeking to recover fees and costs in the Callaway v. Mercedes Benz
USA, Inc. et al. matter, which is one of the Matters (the "EA/Callaway Lawsuit");
WHEREAS, on or about December 21, 2016, EA filed a complaint in California Superior

Court, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-00893847-CU-MC-CJC against Paul Root and
Madison Street Pwtners, Inc. asserting claims for aiding and abetting. breach of duty of loyalty_
and aiding and abetting fraud (the "EA/Root Lawsuit");
WHEREAS, on or about February 8, 2017, EA's fonner clients, Authentic Entertainment

Properties, LLC and Authentic Entertainment Properties Development, LLC (collectively
"AEP") filed a Demand for Arbitration with JA.Iv1S against EA seeking declaratory relief and
damages relating to EA's former representation of AEP in the AEP v. Royal Center Associates,
LLC et al. matter, which is one of the Matters (the "AEP/EA Arbitration");
WHEREAS, on or about February 28, 2017, EA filed a motion to adjudicate its attorney
lien against AEP in the District Court for Clark County Nevada, in the AEP v. Royal Center
Associates, LLC et al. matter, which such motion was denied and is currently being appealed by
EA;
WHEREAS, on or about March 1, 2017, an Involuntary Bankruptcy Petition against EA,

seeking that EA be a debtor in a Chapter 11 case was filed in the Middle District of Florida, Case
No. 6: l 7-bk-01329-KSJ (the "Bankruptcy Case");
WHEREAS, on or about March 10, 2017, EA consented to entry of Order for Relief in
the Bankruptcy Case;
WHEREAS, on or about May 16, 2017, the Bankruptcy Case was transferred to the
Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, before the Honorable Catherine E. Bauer (the
"Bankruptcy Court"), and assigned a new case number 8: 17-bk-1191-CB;
WHEREAS, on or about June 19, 2017, JFL filed a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy
Case in the amount of not less than $18,615,886, which included (a) $12,396,633 in unpaid
compensation under the JFL Agreement; (b) $1,868,221 in prejudgment, prepetition interest; (c)
$500,000 in pre-petition attorneys' fees and costs; and (d) fraud damages and punitive damages
in an unliquidated amount but likely in excess of $4,000,000;
137774123.8 2
Exhibit C-Page18
WHEREAS, on or about June 19, 2017, FRANK, SIMS, STOLPER and FSS also filed
Proofs of Claim in the Bankruptcy Case;
WHEREAS, on or about July 12, 2017, JFL filed a motion for relief from stay to proceed
with the JFL Arbitration [Bankruptcy Case Docket Nos. 155, et al.] ("JFL RFS Motion"), the
Debtor and certain other parties filed oppositions to the JFL RFS Motion, JFL filed a reply to
those oppositions, a hearing on the JFL RFS Motion commenced on August 9, 2017 and was
continued by direction of the Bankruptcy Court until September 20, 2017 and repeated times
thereafter through and including December 13, 2017;
WHEREAS, A VENA TTI is the managing member and majority equity holder of EA and
solely owns and controls A&A;
WHEREAS, JFL, FRANK and SIMS have asserted that A VENATTI is personally liable
to them for all or substantially all claims they have against EA and that A&A may be liable to
them, all of which A venatti and A&A dispute;
WHEREAS, it is in the personal, professional and business interests of AVENATTI and

the professional and business interests of EA and A&A that the disputes among the JFL Parties
and EA Parties be resolved promptly and each has concluded that he/it will received meaningful
value if this Agreement is executed, approved and fully satisfied; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to resolve any and all disputes between them on the terms
set forth herein (the "Settlement");
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Parties agree as follows:
1. Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case.
l. 1. Subject to Paragraph 1.5 below, the effectiveness of the terms and obligations of
this Agreement are contingent upon (a) EA filing a motion ("Settlement and Dismissal
Motion") with the Bankruptcy Court seeking entry of one or more orders (the "Orders")
approving the· Settlement and authorizing and directing the Debtor to fully comply with
all terms of this Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 9019 ("Settlement Order"),
and dismissing the Bankruptcy Case, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section l 112(b)
("Dismissal Order"), on terms acceptable to JFL and EA, on or before January 3,
2018,with a hearing on the Settlement and Dismissal Motion to be held on January 24,
2018; (b) entry of the Orders on or before January 31, 2018; (c) the Bankruptcy Case
being dismissed within sixteen (16) calendar days after entry of the Dismissal Order; (d)
execution of the Guaranty Agreement (as defined below), on or before December 12,
2017; and (e) if a stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order has been entered
pursuant to Rule 8007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Rule 800r), a
137774123.8 3
Exhibit C-Page19
Termination Notice, as defined in Paragraph 1.5 below, having not been provided by JFL
or EA. The proposed Order(s) are attached as Exhibit B.
1.2. The JFL Parties will not oppose any of the relief sought in the proposed Orders,
nor will they encourage others to do so, all subject to the timely satisfaction of the
deadlines set forth herein (collectively "Deadlines").
1.3. In the event the Orders are not entered by the Deadlines for their entry, or the
Guaranty Agreement is not executed by the pertinent Deadline for its execution, the
Parties shall be returned to the status quo ante prior to their execution of this Agreement,
and the Agreement shall be deemed null and void, and neither this Agreement, its
execution nor any statements contained therein may be used in any subsequent
proceedings in any court or arbitration.
1.4. The hearing on the JFL RFS Motion shall be continued until January 24, 2018.
1.5. If a stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order is entered pursuant to Rule
8007 (a "Stay Order") or if the tenns of this Agreement are materially modified by the
Court, then JFL or EA may elect to withdraw from and terminate this Agreement, in
which case this Agreement and all Orders entered thereon will be rescinded and all
Parties will be restored to the status quo ante prior to the execution of this Agreement,
and the Agreement shall be deemed null and void, and neither this Agreement, its
execution nor any statements contained therein may be used in any subsequent
proceedings in any court or arbitration. If JFL or EA elects to exercise this right to
terminate this Agreement, it shall provide notice of this election to the other parties to this
Agreement, in writing, within five (5) business days after the Stay Order is entered (the
"Termination Notice"). Upon such election, the Parties will cooperate in taking any
action necessary to request that the appropriate court vacate the Settlement Order, the
Dismissal Order and Stay Order, and will not object to or oppose such actions.
1.6. If a Stay Order is issued and neither JFL or EA elect to terminate the Agreement
in accordance with Paragraph 1.5, then the time for perfonning all obligations under this
Agreement will commence upon the later of: (a) sixteen (16) calendar days after the Stay
Order is no longer in effect provided that the Settlement Order and Dismissal Order have
been affirmed; or (b) the time when the obligation would have otherwise been required to
be performed under the terms of this Agreement
2. Resolution of EA's Asserted Liens and Right to Attorneys' Fees and Costs in the
Matters.
2.1. Within sixteen ( 16) calendar days of entry of the Dismissal Order, and provided
no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order having been issued pursuant to Rule
8007, EA will withdraw all purported liens asserted in the Mat1ers and will forever waive
and forego, with prejudice and finality, any present or future claims for attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses, damages, or any other compensation or remedies arising out of or
relating to the Matters.
137774123.8 -t
Exhibit C-Page20
2.2. Upon the sixteenth (16th) day following the entry of the Settlement Order, and
provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order having been issued pursuant
to Rule 8007, the EA Parties will be deemed to have released and forever waived and
foregone, with prejudice and finality, any present or future claims for damages, legal fees
and costs, or other remedies against (a) the JFL Parties, (b) the current, prior or future
parties in the Matters; ( c) the current, prior or future co-counsel of EA or FSS in the
Matters, or (d) any other party or their counsel for claims arising out of or relating to the
Matters, as more fully set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement.
2.3. In exchange for the consideration provided W1der the terms of this Agreement,
JFL has agreed to reduce its claim in the Bankruptcy Case, as set forth in paragraph 3 .1,
below, and SIMS, FRANK, STOLPER and FSS have agreed to waive, forego and
withdraw each of their claims in the Bankruptcy Case, subject to and except for the tenns
of the Releases provided in Paragraph 5 below and compliance with the tenns and
conditions of this Agreement.
2.4. In addition, the JFL Parties have agreed that EA will receive 50% of any and all
legal fees which would otherwise be paid to FSS or FRANK in the future in connection
with FSS's contingency agreement with AEP in the AEP v. Royal Center Associates,
LLC et al. matter. This arrangement will be docwnented in a separate written agreement
between EA, AEP and FSS (the "AEP Fee Sharing Agreement"), the execution of which
shall be required for this Agreement to take effect. A copy of the AEP Fee Sharing
Agreement is attached as Exhibit C.
3. Settlement Payments to JFL.
3.1. Upon entry of the Settlement Order, JFL will have an allowed claim against EA
in the amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00), which claim ("JFL
Allowed Claim") of JFL and liability of EA will survive dismissal of the Bankruptcy
Case, and will not be subject to any further defenses, offsets, counterclaims, oppositions,
answers, objections, contests, disputes or other challenges by any EA Party or any other
party, provided, however, if (a) the Dismissal Order is not entered, (b) a Stay Order is
entered and a Tennination Notice is timely sent, or (c) the Settlement Order is
overturned, vacated or remanded on appeal, then the JFL Allowed Claim will be null and
void and the proof of claim it filed in the Bankruptcy Case and all the claims, rights, and
damages asserted therein and in the JFL Arbitration will remain pending. Nothing in this
Paragraph 3.1 is intended to limit the rights of any Parties to enforce the tenns of this
Agreement. 1
1 For the avoidance of any doubt, the Parties arrived at the JFL Allowed Claim amount of TEN MILLION
DOLLARS (SI 0,000,000 .00) after deducting the credit for fees on the Matters as described in Paragraph 2.3 above
and additionally JFL, thereafter, further agreed to reduce its claim to TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00)
as part of this Settlement. In other words, the Allowed Claim ofTEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) will
not be further reduced by any credit for fees, costs, expenses, damages or any other compensation ullegedly owed on
the Matters.
137774123.8 5
Exhibit C-Page21
3.2. EA will pay JFL the sum of FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,850,000.00) pursuant to the following schedule:
3.2.1. Within sixty (60) calendar days after the entry of the Dismissal Order, and
provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order having been
issued pursuant to Rule 8007 and remains in effect, EA will wire JFL the
sum of TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00), in immediately
available funds, pursuant to written wire instructions to be provided by
JFL.
3.2.2. Within one-hundred and twenty (120) calendar days after the entry of the
Dismissal Order, and provided no stay of the Settlement Order or
Dismissal Order having been issued pursuant to Rule 8007 and remains in
effect, EA will wire JFL the sum of TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,850,000.00), in immediately
available funds, pursuant to written wire instructions to be provided by
JFL.
3.2.3. The payments to be made in accordance with Paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
are collectively referred to as the "Settlement Payments."
3.3. In consideration of the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the
Releases set forth herein and the nature and pendency of the disputes between JFL and
the EA Parties, AVENATTI agrees to personally guarantee, in his individual capacity,
the FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($4,850,000.00) of Settlement Payments. The complete tenns of this guaranty shall be
set forth in a separate agreement ("Guaranty Agreement") between JFL and A VENA TTL
A copy of the Guaranty Agreement is attached as Exhibit D.
3.4. As will be set forth in the Guaranty Agreement, it is the intention of JFL and
AVENATTI that AVENATTI's payment obligations under the Guaranty Agreement
shall be non-dischargeable, under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(b) in the event AVENATTI
becomes a debtor in a bankruptcy case while the Settlement Payments remain outstanding
and thereafter to the extent any party in (1) AVENATTI's bankruptcy case or (2) a
subsequent bankruptcy case or similar proceeding in which EA is the debtor or has a
similar role seeks to recover all or any portion of the Settlement Payments.
3.5. If the Settlement Payments are paid by EA to JFL within the timeframes and in
the manner required by this Agreement, then effective 367 calendar days after the final
Settlement Payment is received by JFL, JFL will waive and forego its right to collect any
part of the remaining FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($5,150,000.00) of its allowed claim.
3.6. Remedy Upon Payment Default. If the Settlement Payments are not made within
three (3) business days of the applicable Settlement Payment date due, then all of the EA
Parties agree that they will no1 oppose the entry by the Bankruptcy Court of a final, non-
137774123.8 6
Exhibit C-Page22
appealable judgment against EA in favor of JFL in the amount of TEN MILLION

DOLLARS minus any amounts previously paid to JFL pursuant to this Agreement (the
"Final Judgment"), and will not oppose the reopening of the Bankruptcy Case for the
limited and sole purpose only of entering fhjs Final Judgment. JFL and the EA Parties
expressly consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bankrnptcy Court to enter fhjs Final
Judgment against EA. By seeking or obtaining any of the relief described in this
paragraph, JFL will not in any way waive or otherwise prejudice or impact its right to
enforce the personal guarantee and Guaranty Agreement set forth in Paragraphs 3.3 and
3.4 of the Agreement.
4. Dismissal of Lawsuits and Arbitrations.
4.1. Wifhjn sixteen (16) calendar days of entry of the Dismissal Order, and provided
no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order having been issued pursuant to Rule
8007, the commencing party in each of the following actions shall dismiss the actions and
all claims therein with prejudice: (a) the JFL Arbitration and EA's counterclaims therein;
and (b) the SIMS Arbitration and EA's coooterclaims therein. With respect to the other
litigation, EA will not pursue the ENBirbrower Arbitration, the ENCallaway Lawsuit,
the ENRoot Lawsuit or any claims against AEP. AEP has dismissed, without prejudice,
the AEP/EA Arbitration.
5. Releases.
5.1. Release of EA Parties by JFL Parties. Effective upon the latest of (a) entry of
Settlement Order, (b) entry of the Dismissal Order, and (c) dismissal of the Bankruptcy
Case, and provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order having been
issued pursuant to Rule 8007, and in consideration of the tenns of this Agreement and
other good and valuable consideration, JFL, FRANK, SIMS, STOLPER and FSS on their
own behalf and on behalf of each and all of their respective legal predecessors,
successors, assignees, attorneys, agents, partners, owners, employees, heirs, parents,
children, spouses, and related organizations hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
release, and fu11y and forever discharge, absolve, and covenant not to sue the EA Parties,
and each of them, and every one of their respective partners, officers, directors, owners,
agents, employees, companies, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, attorneys,
trustees, legatee, personal representative, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries, executors,
representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, related parties, heirs, parents, children
and spouses from and for any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, damages, legal
or administrative relief, of any basis or source, whether known or unknown, that were,
have been or could have been asserted now, in the past, or in the future, including, but not
limited to, any and all claims raised in the JFL Arbitration, the Sims Arbitration or the
Bankruptcy Case and/or any and all claims arising out of or relating to the JFL
Agreement, the Sims Agreement and JFL's, Frank's, Sims' or Stolper's employment at or
other rendition of services at EA. However, and notwithstanding any other terms in this
Agreement, this release does not include or in any way release or waive claims held by
any of the JFL Parties for indemnification, contribution and insurance coverage for any
claims brought against them related to their employment at, or rendition of services at,
1)7774123.8 7
Exhibit C-Page23
EA, including without limitation indemnification for tax liability that they may have now
or in the future against EA. Further, notwithstanding the foregoing or any other tenns of
this Agreement, the releases set forth in this paragraph shall not operate to release the EA
Parties from any of their payment and other covenants, obligations and duties under this
Agreement or the Guaranty Agreement, nor will they in any way waive, limit or foreclose
any of the JFL Parties from seeking and obtaining any appropriate remedies for any
violation of the terms of this Agreement or the Guaranty Agreement.
5.2. ReJensc of JFL Pnrtics by the EA Parties. Effective upon the latest of (a) entry
of the Settlement Order, (b) entry of the Dismissal Order, and (c) dismissal of the
Bankruptcy Case, and provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order
having been issued pursuant to Rule 8007, and in consideration of the terms of this
Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, EA, EAGAN, A&A and
AVENAITI on their own behalf and on behalf of each and all of their respective legal
predecessors, successors, assignees, attorneys, agents, partners, employees, heirs, parents,
children, spouses, creditors, owners, executors, trustees and related parties hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally release, and fully and forever discharge, absolve, and
covenant not to sue the JFL Parties, and each of them, and every one of their respective
partners, officers, directors, owners, agents, employees, companies, subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, attorneys, trustees, legatee or personal representative, administrators,
insurers, fiduciaries, executors, representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, related
organizations, heirs, parents, children and spouses from and for any and all claims, causes
of action, liabilities, damages, legal or administrative relief, of any basis or source,
whether known or unknown, that were, have been or could have been asserted now, in the
past, or in the future. This release includes, but is not limited to any and all claims or
counterclaims raised in the JFL Arbitration, the SIMS Arbitration or the Bankruptcy Case
and/or any and all claims arising out of or relating to the JFL Agreement, the SIMS
Agreement or the Parties employment at EA or other rendition of services at EA, or any
and all claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, misappropriation, trade secret,
conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty or other such claims against
the JFL Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, theses releases shall not operate to
release the JFL Parties from any of their covenants, obligations and duties under this
Agreement or the Guaranty Agreement, nor will they in any way waive, limit or foreclose
any of the EA Parties from seeking and obtaining any appropriate remedies or relief for
any violation of the tenns of this Agreement or the Guaranty Agreement.
5.3. Release of Counsel in the Matters by the EA Parties. Effective upon the latest
of (a) en1ry of Settlement Order, (b} entry of the Dismissal Order, and (c) dismissal of the
Bankruptcy Case, and provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismi.ssal Order
having been issued pursuant to Rule 8007, and in consideration of the terms of this
Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, each of EA, EAGAN, A&A and
AVENATTI on their ov.,11 behalf and on behalf of each and all of their respective legal
predecessors, successors, assignees, attorneys, agents, partners, employees, heirs, parents,
children, spouses, creditors and related organizations hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally release, and fully and forever discharge, absolve, and covenant not to sue
the current, past or future co-counsel, in-house counsel, local counsel or subsequent
137774123.& 8
Exhibit C-Page24
Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 12-3 Filed 09/27/18 Page 10 of 43 Page ID
#:154
counsel for current, past or future clients of FSS in the Matters for any claims for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, damages, or any other compensation or remedies arising
out of or related to the matters listed on Exhibit "A," whether known or unlmovm, that
were, have been or could have been asserted now, in the past, or in the furure. The
persons and entities covered by this release include, but are not limited to: (a) Franklin D.
Azar & Associates, P.C., Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Keith R. Scranton, Esq. and Jonathan
Parrott, Esq.; (b) Law Offices of Steven R. Young and Steven R. Young, Esq.; ( c) Girardi
Keese, LLP and James O'Callahan, Esq.; (d) McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP, Patrick
McNicholas, Esq., Matthew McNicholas, Esq., Philip Shakhnis Esq., and Michael J.
Kent, Esq.; (e) Yuhl Carr LLP, Eric Yuhl, Esq. and Colin Yuhl Esq.; (f) Snell & Wilmer
LLP and Steve T. Graham; (g) Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP and Dan R. Waite,
Esq.; (h) Bridgford Gleason & Artinian, Richard K. Bridgford, Esq. and Michael H.
Artinian, Esq.; (i) Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Jorg Ritter, Esq.; (j) Osborn
Machler and Simeon J. Osborn, Esq.; (k) Smyth & Mason PLLC and Jeffrey Smyth Esq.
and (l) FSS, FRANK, SIMS and STOLPER as well as their respective legal predecessors,
successors, assignees, attorneys, agents, partners, employees and related organizations.
5.4. Release of the Clients in the Matters by the EA Parties. Effective upon the
latest of (a) entry of Settlement Order, (b) entry of the Dismissal Order, and (c) dismissal
of the Bankruptcy Case, and provided no stay of the Settlement Order or Dismissal Order
having been issued pursuant to Rule 8007, each of EA, EAGAN, A&A and A VENATTI
on their own behalf and on behalf of each and all of their respective legal predecessors,
successors, assignees, attorneys, agents, partners, employees, heirs, parents, children,
spouses, creditors and related organizations hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
release, and fully and forever discharge, absolve, and covenant not to sue the clients and
class members in the Matters for any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses,
damages, or any other compensation or remedies arising out of or related to the Matters
whether known or Wlknown, that were, have been or could have been asserted now, in the
past, or in the future. The persons and entities covered by this release include, but are not
limited to: (a) Kimberly Birbrower; (b) William (Scott) and Elizabeth Callaway; (c)
Authentic Ente1tainment Properties, LLP, Authentic Entertainment Properties
Development, LLP, RCC Company, LLC, Robert Coffman, Robert O'Neil and Steve
Graham; (d) Hannes Kuhn; (e) Gary and Louise Weaver; (t) Jeffrey Wall; (g) the Estate
of Jonathan A. Spound, Corey Spound, Michael Spound, and Amy Spound; (h) Skylar
Ward; (i) Jamie Deehan; G) Rasheed, Robinson and Jiminez; (k) Shayna Broadstone and
Kristine Billon; (1) Benjamin Lagunas, Dianna Mendoza and Susan Jung; and (m) Al
Chaffee, Yuping Chen, Jeanne Demund, Laird Devick, Todd Hager, Ash Hanlon, Peter
Heathcote, NathW1iel Heathcote, Mike Scheffler, Matthew Wahlman and Michael
Wilson, as well as their respective legal predecessors, successors, assignees, attorneys,
agents, partners, employees, related organizations, heirs, parents, siblings and children.
6. Waiver of Civil Code§ 1542. Each of the Parties has read and understood the following
language contained in Section 1542 of the California Civil Code:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WH1CH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT
137774123.8 9
Exhibit C-Page25
#:155
TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF

EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
OF HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
To the extent that Section 1542 is applicable, each of the Parties hereto expressly waives
all rights, if any, that they may have m1der this statute.
7. No Admission of Liabilitv. This Agreement is made in settlement of claims and

allegations which are denied, disputed, and contested. Neither this Agreement nor
anything contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission of any fact,
issue, liability, or responsibility by any Party hereto to any other Party hereto, all of
which are expressly denied.
8. Assignment. Each of the Parties represents and warrants that he, she, or it has not
assigned or transferred to any person not a Party to this Agreement any part or portion of
any matter released -m1der this Agreement, and each Party agrees to-defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the other Parties against any claim (including the payment of
attorneys' fees and costs actually incurred whether or not litigation or other proceedings
are commenced) based on or in connection with, or arising out of any such assignment or
transfer made, purported, or cJaimed. Each of the Parties represents and warrants that he,
she, or it will not assign or transfer to any person not a Party to this Agreement any part
or portion of any obligations or liabilities created under this Agreement, except that JFL
may assign its rights to receive the Sett)ement Payments to any party, in its sole
discretion, and no Party may assign any of its other rights or obligations. Each Party
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Parties against any claim
(including the payment of attorneys' fees and costs actually incurred whether or not
litigation or other proceedings are commenced) based on or in connection with, or arising
out of any such assignment or transfer made, purported, or claimed in violation of this
paragraph.
9. Indemnification of Claims Brought by Green Street Advisors, LLC. The EA Parties,

and each of them, hereby agree they will fully indemnify the JFL Parties and the Estate of
Jonathan A. Spound and its Administrators, Corey and Michael Spound, for any and all
claims brought by Green Street Advisors, LLC ("Green Street'') against them individually
or collectively for amounts owed under the Service Engagement Agreement entered into
between EA and Green Street in the matter Spound v. SSV Properties et al., dated March
31, 2016, and modified by an Addendwn with the same date (the "Green Street
Engagement"), including but not limited to providing a defense and paying for all
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred defending against such claims.
10. Mutual Non-Defamation. Each of the Parties agree that they will not make any
defamatory statements about each other to any third party, whether orally or in writing.
137774123.& 10
Exhibit C-Page26
#:156
11. Changes to FSS Website. At the request of EA, FSS has made changes to its website
with respect to matters that were previously resolved at EA, and those changes will
remain in effect as long as such matters are included on the website.
12. EA Cooperation on Fee Applications. EA will cooperate with FSS to promptly

compile and provide FSS with all time sheets, emails and other records documenting the
time spent at EA on the disputed Matters so that FSS may submit such time in support of
any necessary fee applications or other motion practice.
13. EA Agreement to Automatically Forward Emails. EA shall arrange to have all emails
sent to the EA email addresses for FRANK, SIMS, STOLPER or Maritza Nowowiejski
automatically forwarded to FRANK, SIMS, STOLPER and Maritza Nowowiejski at FSS
for a period expiring no earlier than December 31, 2018, and thereafter disable the email
addresses.
14. EA Agreement to Delete FRANK's Personal Folder. EA agrees that FRANK will be
provided with access to his personal folder on EA's computer system, and upon request,
will permanently delete any such items from EA's system.
15. Destruction of Documents and Use in Future Legnl Proceedings. Within sixteen (16)
calendar days of entry of the Dismissal Order, and provided no stay of the Settlement
Order or Dismissal Order having been issued pursuant to Rule 8007, the Parties and each
of their respective attorneys, consultants, experts, agents, and representatives and any
other person or entity under the direction or control of any of them, and any other person
or entity that they caused information to be disseminated to will destroy the original and
all copies of the following materials and documents, whether in hard copy or electronic
fonn:
• All discovery, documents, materials, and electronic files received from any
Party that were marked confidential.
The Parties shall also jointly request JAMS and its arbitrators to destroy its entire file
relating to the JFL arbitration, with the exception of billing information, within 10 days
or other reasonable time period proposed by JAMS and agreed to by the Parties, and
carry out all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
Further, to the extent consistent with their professional, ethical and legal obligations, the
Parties further agree they will not use the following documents in any subsequent legal
proceeding, litigation or arbitration, unless the litigation is between the Parties:
• All discovery responses provided by any Party during the JFL Arbitration;
• All orders entered by any arbitrator during the JFL Arbitration relating to
discovery or sanctions;
• All pleadings relating to any motion for sanctions and/or terminating sanctions
submitted in connection with the JFL arbitration, including but not limited to
all exhibits filed in connection with any such pleading.
137774 123 .8 11
Exhibit C-Page27
#:157
16. Payment, Dismissal and Release Obligations Are Not Excused by Alleged Breaches
of this Agreement. The payment, dismissal and release obligations set forth in this
Agreement and the Guaranty Agreement will not be delayed or excused by any alleged
breach or violation of Section 7 through 27 of this Agreement. However, any such
breaches may be remedied pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in
Paragraph 21 of this Agreement
17. Representations and Warranties. The Parties hereto represent and warrant that each
has read and understood and has received independent legal advice with respect to the
advisability of making this Agreement, and/or has had the opportunity to obtain such
legal advice and has knowingly entered into this Agreement without taking advantage of
the opportunity to obtain such advice. Each Party has made such investigation of the
facts pertaining to this Agreement and of all other matters pertaining hereto as they deem
necessary. The Parties hereto represent and warrant that each signatory hereto has the
full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind the Party on whose behalf
he, she, or it has executed this Agreement.
18. Further Assurances. Each Party hereto agrees to cooperate fully and to execute any and
all supplementary docwnents and to take all additional actions that may be necessary or
appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic tenns and intent of this Agreement
and which are not inconsistent with its tenns and intent.
19. Headings. The various headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only,
and shall not be deemed a part of or in any manner affect this Agreement or any
provision hereof.
20. Governing Lnw. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with
the substantive laws of the State of California and the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Respective counsel for each Party hereto has participated in the drafting of, read, and
approved the language of this Agreement. The language of this Agreement shall be
construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of
the Parties hereto.
21. Dispute Resolution Procedure. Any disputes regarding this Agreement, with the
exception of the procedures set forth in Paragraph 3.6 above pertaining to failures to
make the Settlement Payments in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, shall be
first submitted to the Honorable Louis Meisinger to resolve in mediation, and the cost of
the mediation shall be equally borne by the JFL Parties, on the one hand, and the EA
Parties, on the other hand. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, then 10 days
after the mediation, they will submit the claim to binding arbitration before Benchmark
Resolution Group, Inc. (the organization recently fonned by Judge Meisinger) in Los
Angeles, California to be resolved employing their rules and procedures for arbitration.
22. Waiver/Severnbility. The Parties agree that no waiver by any Party of any particular
provision or right under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other
137'174123.8 12
Exhibit C-Page28
#:158
provision or right herein. The Parties further agree that each provision or term of this
Agreement is intended to be severable from the others so that if any particular provision
or term hereof is or determined to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such
illegality or invalidity shall not affect the legality or validity of the remaining provisions
and terms hereof.
23. Attorneys' Fees. The Parties agree that should any relief be brought by any Party to
enforce any provision or right under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover, in addition to any other relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs inctmed
therein.
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement and
understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes
all prior agreements and understandings between the Parties on those subjects hereto with
the exception of (a) the AEP Fee Sharing Agreement and the Guaranty Agreement and
(b) the Separation Agreement entered into between EA and STOLPER dated May 23,
2016 (the "STOLPER Separation Agreement"). If there is an inconsistency between this
Agreement and the STOLPER Separation Agreement, this Agreement will control. Each
of the Parties hereto acknowledge to each of the other Parties that no other Party or any
agent or attorney of any Party has made any promise, representation or warranty
whatsoever, express or implie~ written or oral, not contained herein concerning the
subject matter hereof to induce him, her, or it to execute this Agreement, and each of the
Parties hereto acknowledges that he, she, or it has not executed this Agreement in
reliance on any promise, representation or warranty not expressly contained herein. No
person has any authority to make any representation or promise on behalf of any Party
that is not set forth herein. This Agreement may be modified only with a written
instrument duly executed by each of the Parties hereto.
25. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall bind and shall inure to the benefit of
successors and assigns of each Party. With respect to the individual Parties, this
Agreement shall also bind and inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, assigns, executors,
legatees, administrators and personal representatives. With respect to the entity Parties,
this Agreement shall also bind and inure to the benefit of any parent, affiliate,
predecessor-in-interest, successor-in-interest, transferee, endorsee, or assign.
26. Notice Provision. Any and all notices required by this Agreement shall be mailed and
emailed in writing to the following:
26.1. To the JFL Parties. To Jason Frank, Scott Sims, & Andrew Stolper, Frank Sims
& Stolper LLP, 19800 McArthur Blvd., Suite 855, Irvine, California 92612,
j frank@lawfss.com; ssims@lawfss.com; astolper@lawfss.com
26.2. To the EA Parties. To Michael Avenatti & Michael Eagan, Eagan Avenatti,
LLP, 520 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 1400, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
mavenattiro eauanavenatti.com.
137774123.8 13
Exhibit C-Page29
#:159
rparts, and a
27. Execution/Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in count.e
an origina l signature
facsimile or PDF signature shall have the same force and effect as
at least one such
penned in ink. When ea.ch ofthe Parties hereto has signed and delivered
be deemed an
counterpart to all other Parties or their counsel, each counterpart shall
constitute one
original, and when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall
upon and effective as to all Parties.
fully executed agreement which shall be binding
to be executed as of
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement
the day and year indicated below.
Dece mbe~ 2017
Its Managing Partner
Dece mber ~ 2017 ~~A SSO CIA TES , APC
'chael J. Avenatti
Its President
Decem ber~ 2017
·chael J. Avenatti
In his individual capacity
Decembeil~ 2017 MICHAEL Q. EAGAN
December .[}io17 I
14
Exhibit C-Page30
#:160
December/ ho 17
December/ ~017
December /~017 sco
In his individuaJ capacity

---
Dccembe~7 LPER
Andrew D. Stolper
1n his individual
APPROVED AS TO FOR.tvt:
J'4,-,i,cr7 Jt11 :ZoJ<g

Deeembc1 __, 26+7 PACHULSKl STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
dvlnrz favv,io
llich::u:d M. Pacbulsk.i Robe,./ /)},
_
Sa w.•.fi'tJ
Counsel to Eagan Avenatti LLP
rs
Exhibit C-Page31
#:161
DecemberJ2 2017
December _ , 2017 SULMEYER KUPETZ LLP
Marc Haroupian
Counsel to Michael A venatti and Avenatti &
Associates APC
137774123.8 16
Exhibit C-Page32
#:162
December_, 2017 PERKINS COIE LLP
Sara L. Chenetz
Counsel to the JFL Parties
December_, 2017
Md=fu&\iib
Counsel to Michael Avenatti and Avenatti &
Associates APC
/'·-{A(<K /-fo fl. 0 U. f I I'< ,J
137774123.8 16
Exhibit C-Page33
#:163
Exhibit A to Settleme nt Agreeme nt

Case Name
1. Birbrower v. Quorn Foods, Inc.
• Nationwide class action for false advertising

2. Callaway v. Mercedes Benz USA, Inc.
• California class action concerning defective seat heaters

3. Authent ic Entertainme nt Properties v. Royal Center et al.
• Breach of Joint Venture Agreement

4. We aver v. Southern California Edison, et al.
• Personal injury action

• Plaintiff is Jason Frank's cousin
.
s. Shine v. Williams Sonoma, Inc.
• California employment class action challenging on-call shift policy

6. Ward v. Tilly's
• california employment class action challen~in~ on-call shift policy

7. Deehan v. Gap, Inc.

8. Rasheed v. Gap, Inc.

9. Broadstone v. Pacific Sunwear

10. Broadstone/ Billon v. Bath & Body

11. Robin son v. BCBG

12. Lagunas v. Ambercrom bie

13. Jiminez (Dylan)
• Unaware of any case by this name
Exhibit C-Page34
#:164
14. RFF v. Spound
• Hourly breach of contract case representing Defendant

• Incorrectly listed on EA's schedule as a plaintiff case
15. Hannes Kuhn
16. Chaffe v. Keller Rohrback
• Attorney malpractice action

17. Eldard (Wall) v. Hewlett Packard
• California employment class action for waiting t ime penalties
Exhibit C-Page35
#:165
Exhibit C-Page36
#:166
Exhibit C-Page37
#:167
Exhibit C-Page38
#:168
Exhibit C-Page39
#:169
Exhibit C-Page40
#:170
Exhibit C-Page41
#:171
EXHIBIT C
Exhibit C-Page42
#:172
Exhibit C-Page43
#:173
Exhibit C-Page44
#:174
Exhibit C-Page45
#:175
Exhibit C-Page46
#:176
Exhibit C-Page47
#:177
Exhibit C-Page48
#:178
Exhibit C-Page49
#:179
Exhibit C-Page50
#:180
Exhibit C-Page51
#:181
EXHIBIT D
Exhibit C-Page52
#:182
Exhibit C-Page53
#:183
Exhibit C-Page54
#:184
Exhibit C-Page55
#:185
Exhibit C-Page56
#:186
Exhibit C-Page57
#:187
Exhibit C-Page58
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
412 Filed
12-4
03/15/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 03/15/18
Page 2 of17:47:35
5 Page ID
Desc
#:189
1 Richard M. Pachulski, SBN 90073

Ira D. Kharasch, SBN 109084
2 Robert M. Saunders, SBN 226172
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP FILED & ENTERED
3 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 13th Floor
4 Tel: 310-277-6910 MAR 15 2018
Fax: 310-201-0760
5 rpachulski@pszjlaw.com
ikharasch@pszjlaw.com CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
6 rsaunders@pszjlaw.com BY mccall DEPUTY CLERK
7 Attorneys for Debtor and Debtor in Possession
10
11 In re: Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION

Debtor. APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
14 DISMISSING CASE AND RELATED
RELIEF
15
Hearing:
16 Date: February 28, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
17 Courtroom: 5D
Address: 411 West Fourth Street
18 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4393
19 A hearing was held on February 28, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Catherine E.
20 Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 5D
21 located at 411 West Fourth St., Santa Ana, CA, on Debtor’s Motion Approving Settlement and
22 Dismissing Case filed January 30, 2018 as Docket #343 (“Motion”). Capitalized terms which are
23 not defined in this Order shall have the same meanings as provided to such terms in the Motion.
24 Appearances were made as noted on the record.
25 A declaration from SulmeyerKupetz, APC (“Sulmeyer Declaration”) was filed March 15,
26 2018 as Docket #408, stating that it has received into its trust account the Initial Payment (as defined
27 in IRS Payment Stipulation at Docket #341), and the allowed amounts of the fees and expenses of
28 Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP and Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP. A declaration from Dinsmore &
1 Exhibit D-Page 59
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
412 Filed
12-4
03/15/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 03/15/18
Page 3 of17:47:35
5 Page ID
Desc
#:190
1 Shohl, LLP (together with the Sulmeyer Declaration, “Declarations”) was filed March 15, 2018 as
2 Docket #409, stating that it has received the Debtor’s California confessions of judgment for certain
3 identified claims (“Identified Claims”).
4 The Court having read and considered the Motion and pleadings filed in support of the
5 Motion, heard the statements of counsel at the Hearing, considered and overruled the opposition of
6 unsecured creditor Stoll Nussbaum & Polakov, read and considered the Declarations, and with good
7 cause shown:
8 IT IS ORDERED:
9 1. Except as otherwise set forth in this order, the Motion is granted, the JFL Settlement
10 is approved, the Debtor is authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement and
11 effectuate the Settlement Agreement, and the Case is dismissed.
13 the Initial Payment to the United States on or before the tenth calendar day following the entry of
14 this order pursuant to the terms set forth in the IRS Payment Stipulation at Docket #341, regardless
15 of whether there is a stay pending appeal.
17 the allowed fees and costs of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones and Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, on the
18 tenth calendar day after this order is entered, except if there is a stay pending appeal.
19 4. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP is authorized to release each confession of judgment at the
20 request from a holder of an Identified Claim per the below.
21 5. Claim 8-1, filed in this case by Jason Frank Law PLC, is allowed in the amount of
22 $10,000,000.00 (“Compromised Claim Amount”), and additionally to the extent such claim asserts a
23 claim for indemnification, contribution, and insurance coverage brought against JFL related to the
24 performance of services at Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
25 6. If Jason Frank Law, PLC timely and fully receives the Settlement Payments set forth
26 in paragraph 3.2 of the Settlement Agreement, the Compromised Claim Amount will be deemed
27 satisfied in full on the date set forth in paragraph 3.5 of the Settlement Agreement.
28 //
2 Exhibit D-Page 60
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
412 Filed
12-4
03/15/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 03/15/18
Page 4 of17:47:35
5 Page ID
Desc
#:191
1 7. Claims 6-1, 7-1 and 9-1 are each allowed only to the extent such claims assert a claim
2 for indemnification, contribution and insurance coverage for any claims brought against Jason M.
3 Frank, Scott Sims or Andrew Stolper related to the performance of services at Eagan Avenatti, LLP.
4 8. Holders of Identified Claims shall be paid the liquidated, non-contingent prepetition
5 amount set forth in their proofs of claim, or as set forth in the Debtor’s Schedules if no proof of
6 claim was filed prior to the filing of the Motion. Such amounts shall be paid in nine equal monthly
7 installments, without interest, beginning 91 days after the date of entry of this order. If the Debtor
8 fails to timely remit any installment, then the Debtor shall have ten days after written notice is
9 mailed by the holder to the Debtor to cure such payment default. If the payment default is not timely
10 cured, then the holder, without further notice to the Debtor, may accelerate the balance due and
11 submit to the Superior Court of the State of California the confession of judgment provided by the
12 Debtor to Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP prior to the entry of this order. Any postpetition portion of an
13 Identified Claim shall be paid in the Debtor’s ordinary course of business. Disputed claims, which
14 are general unsecured claims that are not Identified Claims or ride-through claims (as identified in
15 the Motion), shall be entitled to pursue all remedies available under applicable non-bankruptcy law
16 on entry of this order.
17 9. Any and all claims of ZB, N.A. d/b/a California Bank & Trust that remain
18 outstanding as of the dismissal of the Case shall ride-through the dismissal of the Case unimpaired,
19 with all legal, equitable and contractual rights, including any related security interests, unaltered, and
20 shall be enforceable against the Debtor on and after the dismissal of the Case. The Debtor reserves
21 all legal, equitable and contractual defenses, including offset and recoupment rights to such claims.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25
26
27
28
3 Exhibit D-Page 61
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
412 Filed
12-4
03/15/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 03/15/18
Page 5 of17:47:35
5 Page ID
Desc
#:192
1 10. The Court retains post-dismissal jurisdiction pursuant to LBR 1017-2(f) and as set
2 forth in the Motion.
3 ###
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Date: March 15, 2018
25
26
27
28
4 Exhibit D-Page 62
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
2 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:194
1 NICOLA T. HANNA
United States Attorney
2 THOMAS D. COKER
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Tax Division
NAJAH J. SHARIFF (Cal. Bar No. 201216)
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Federal Building, Suite 7211
5 300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
6 Telephone: (213) 894-2534
Facsimile: (213) 894-0115
7 E-mail: najah.shariff@usdoj.gov
8 Attorneys for the United States of America
11 SANTA ANA DIVISION

In re Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB
12
EAGAN AVENATI LLP, Chapter 11
13
Debtor. THE UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO
14 ENFORCE ORDER AND FIND DEBTOR IN
CONTEMPT; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
15 TO VACATE DISMISSAL ORDER AND
REINSTATE THE CHAPTER 11 CASE; AND
16 DECLARATION OF NAJAH J. SHARIFF IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
17
Hearing Date: July 25, 2018
18 Hearing Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Courtroom 5D
19 U.S. Bankruptcy Court
411 West Fourth Street
21
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the above-stated date and time, the UNITED STATES
22
OF AMERICA (hereinafter “United States”) on behalf of its agency, the INTERNAL
23 REVENUE SERVICE (hereinafter “IRS”) will move to request this Court to enforce its own
24 “Order Approving Stipulation Among Debtor, Michael Avenatti, and the United States of
25 America on Behalf of the Internal Revenue Service Regarding the Terms of Payment of Taxes in
26 the Event of Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case” entered on March 15, 2018 filed at Docket No. 413,
and find the Debtor in Contempt requiring immediate payment to the IRS in the amount of
27
$440,291.45, plus accrued interest of $11,709.07; or, in the alternative, to vacate the dismissal
28
-i- Exhibit E-Page 63

Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
3 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:195
1 order entered by the Court on March 15, 2018 filed at docket no. 413 and reinstate the Chapter
2 11 case.
3 The grounds for this motion are set out more fully in the attached Memorandum of Points
4 and Authorities; the Declaration of Najah J. Shariff; the Stipulation Among Debtor, Michael
5 Avenatti, and the United States of America on Behalf of the Internal Revenue Service Regarding
6 the Terms of Payment of Taxes in the Event of Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case and Order
7 Approving said Stipulation filed at Docket Nos. 341 and 413, respectively; Debtor’s Motion for
8 Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case and Order approving subject Motion filed at
9 Docket Nos. 343 and 412, respectively, and the pleadings and record in this case, and all other
10 evidence properly presented to the court.
11 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(f) requires a
12 formal response at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing regarding the Motion. Any
13 response must be in writing, served on the undersigned, and must comply with Local Bankruptcy
14 Rule 9013-1(f) and must include a brief but complete statement of all reasons in opposition and
15 declarations and copies of all documentary evidence on which the responding party intends to
16 rely. Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(h), papers not timely filed and served must be
17 deemed by the Court to be consent to the granting of the Motion.
18
19
20 NICOLA T. HANNA
21 THOMAS D. COKER
Chief, Tax Division
23
24 Date: July 3, 2018 _/s/ Najah J. Shariff___________________

NAJAH J. SHARIFF
25
26 Attorneys for the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
27
28
-ii- Exhibit E-Page 64

Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
4 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:196

2 STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 Transfer of Bankruptcy Case
4
On March 1, 2017, an involuntary petition was filed against the Debtor Eagan Avenatti,
5
LLP (“Debtor”) by petitioning creditor Gerald Tobin in the Middle District of Florida with
6
assigned case number 6:17-bk-01329-KSJ. See Docket No. 1. By an Order dated April 21,
7
8 2017, the bankruptcy court in the Middle District of Florida granted the United States Trustee’s
9 Motion to transfer venue of the bankruptcy case to the Central District of California. See Docket
10 Nos. 1 and 70. On May 16, 2017, the Clerk issued a Notice of Transfer of Case (Inter/Intra
11
District Transfer), and assigned new case number 8:17-bk-11961-CB. See Docket No. 74.
12
IRS Proof of Claim
13
Here, the IRS filed a Proof of Claim (the “Proof of Claim”) totaling in the amount of
14
$1,440,908.72 on April 7, 2017 (Claim 1-1); a first amended Proof of Claim in the amount of
15
16 $1,080,617.11 on April 28, 2017 (Claim 1-2); a second amended Proof of Claim in the amount of
17 $1,080, 617.11 on May 26, 2017 (Claim 1-3); a third amended Proof of Claim in the amount of
18 $1,080,617.11on June 12, 2017 (Claim 1-4); a fourth amended Proof of Claim in the amount of
19
$2,014,145.67 on July 19, 2017 (Claim 1-5); and a fifth amended Proof of Claim in the amount
20
of $2,357,201.56, which consisted of a secured claim in the amount of $677,410.24, a priority
21
tax claim of $1,259,354.52, and a general unsecured claim of $420,436.80 on October 10, 2017
22
23 (Claim 1-6).
24 Cash Collateral and Adequate Protection
25 On May 31, 2017, Debtor and the United States entered into a Stipulation permitting the
26 Debtor to use cash collateral and providing for the IRS to receive adequate protection payments,
27
which was supplemented by the Supplement to the Stipulation filed on June 13, 2017. See
28
Docket Nos. 91 and 117, respectively. The supplemented and the interim stipulation were
-1- Exhibit E-Page 65
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
5 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:197
1 approved by this Court by its order entered August 7, 2017, Docket No.197. Renewed
2 stipulations were filed on (a) October 5, 2017, Docket No. 253; (b) November 6, 2017, Docket
3
No 276; (c) December 4, 2017, Docket No. 293; and (d) January 9, 2018, Docket No. 311.
4
United States Payment Stipulation
5
On January 30, 2018, the Debtor, Michael Avenatti, and the United States entered into a
6
7 Stipulation entitled “Stipulation Among Debtor, Michael Avenatti, and the United States of
8 America on Behalf of the Internal Revenue Service Regarding the Terms of Payment of Taxes in
9 the Event of Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case” filed at Docket No. 341 (“United States Payment
10
Stipulation”). The United States Payment Stipulation includes an agreed upon payment
11
schedule by the Debtor, Michael Avenatti, and the United States in full satisfaction of its claims
12
against the Debtor and Michael Avenatti, as set forth in the fifth amended proof of claim, Claim
13
1-6. See Docket No. 341, ¶ ¶ 2-4. The United States Payment Stipulation is conditioned upon
14
15 the entry of a final order approving said Stipulation. See Docket No. 341, ¶ 1. Under the United
16 States Payment Stipulation, Avenatti was required to deliver the Initial Payment (as described
17 below) to Counsel for the United States on or before the 10th calendar day following the entry of
18
the any order dismissing the case. See Docket No. 341, ¶ 2. The total amount of the Initial
19
Payment is $1,508,422.30, consisting of all of the "Trust Fund” taxes in the amount of
20
$1,288,276.63, and 20% of the “Non-Trust Fund” taxes due as of February 28, 2018, in the
21
22 amount of $220,145.70. Id. After receipt of the Initial Payment, the remaining balance due by
23 the Debtor to the United States was $880,582.91 (the "Remaining Balance"), with interest
24 accruing on the Remaining Balance at the rate determined by applicable nonbankruptcy law
25 pursuant to section 511 of the Bankruptcy Code, the current rate is 4%. See Docket No. at ¶3.
26
The Debtor agreed to pay the Remaining Balance within 120 days from the date of the
27
entry of the order dismissing the case as follows: (a) $440,291.45, plus accrued interest of
28
$11,709.07, on the 60th day following the date of the entry of the Dismissal Order; and (b) an
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
6 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:198
1 additional $440,291.45 plus accrued interest at the rate determined by applicable nonbankruptcy
2 law pursuant to section 511 of the Bankruptcy Code, on the 120th day following the date of the
3
entry of the Dismissal Order, less credit for any adequate protection payments made by the
4
Debtor pursuant to the IRS Cash Collateral Stipulations in the Case. See Docket No. at ¶4. If
5
the Initial Payment is not paid, such that it has not been received by counsel for the United States
6
7 by close of business on the Initial Payment Due Date, then the case dismissal and the United
8 States Payment Stipulation shall not become effective, and shall be null and void, with each
9 party hereto reserving its/their respective rights. See Docket No. at ¶5. The United States
10
Payment Stipulation shall be binding on the Debtor, any committee, any subsequent trustee,
11
Avenatti, the United States, or their successors. See Docket No. at ¶8. Notwithstanding the
12
dismissal of the Debtor's bankruptcy case, pursuant to the United States Payment Stipulation the
13
Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the United States Payment Stipulation.
14
15 See Docket No. at ¶10. By an Order dated March 15, 2018, the Court approved the United
16 States Payment Stipulation (“United States Payment Order”). See Docket No. 413.
17 Motion for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case
18
On January 30, 2018, the Debtor also filed a Motion for Order Approving Settlement and
19
Dismissing Case (“Dismissal Motion”). See Docket No. 343. This Dismissal Motion was
20
seeking an order from the Court, among other things, to implement an expected payment
21
22 stipulation with the United States, which is conditional upon dismissal of the case. See Docket
23 No. 343. By an Order dated March 15, 2018 (“Dismissal Order”), the Court granted the
24 Dismissal Motion and the case was dismissed. See Docket No. 412.
25 Payment Not Received by the United States
26
Per the United States Payment Stipulation and the United States Payment Order, the
27
United States was supposed to receive a payment of $440,291.45, plus accrued interest of
28

Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
7 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:199
1 $11,709.07 on May 14, 2018. See Docket Nos. 341, ¶ 4, and 413.1 To date, the United States
2 has not received this May 14, 2018 payment. See Shariff Decl., ¶ 8.
3 Informal Attempts to Resolve the Delinquent Payment
4 The Undersigned Counsel for the United States (“USA Counsel”) has attempted on
5 numerous occasions to secure the delinquent payment from the Debtor without success. On May
6 15, 2018, USA Counsel emailed Mark Horoupian who is counsel for Michael Avenatti, principle
7 and responsible officer of Debtor, and cc’d Michael Avenatti, providing notice that the payment
8 of $440,291.45, plus accrued interest of $11,709.07, was not received by the United States by the
9 deadline of May 14, 2018, and requested payment immediately. See Declaration of Najah J.
10 Shariff (hereinafter “Shariff Decl.”) ¶ 4. On or about May 17 and May 24, 2018, USA Counsel
11 had telephone discussions with Mr. Horoupian trying to resolve the issue related to the
12 delinquent payment. See Shariff Decl., ¶ 5. Again by emails dated May 21 through 25, 2018 to
13 Mr. Horoupian (and cc’d to Mr. Avenatti) USA Counsel attempted to meet and confer to
14 informally resolve the issue and advised that a Motion to Enforce would be filed and provided
15 until June 1, 2018 to receive the delinquent payment. See Shariff Decl., ¶ 6. Subsequently, on
16 June 1and June 14, 2018, USA Counsel again emailed Mr. Horoupian (and cc’d Mr. Avenatti)
17 requesting the payment and provided notice that this office will move forward to take any and all
18 actions necessary to protect the interest of the United States. See Shariff Decl., ¶ 7. To date, no
19 payment has been received by the United States. See Shariff Decl., ¶ 8.
20 ARGUMENT
21 A. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER ENTERED ON
MARCH 15, 2018 AT DOCKET NO 413.
22
“[I]t has been long recognized that all courts have an inherent power to enforce
23
compliance with lawful orders entered by them.” See In re Esposito, 119 B.R. 305, 307 (D. Fla.
24
1990) (citing Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987);
25 Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Ry. Co., 266 U.S.
26 42, 65--66 (1924) (same); United States v. Askew, 584 F.2d 960, 962 (10th Cir. 1978) (same)).
27
28 1 In addition, on July 14, 2018, the Debtor is required to make a final payment of the remainder amount due of
$440,291.45, plus accrued interest at the rate determined by applicable nonbankruptcy law pursuant to section 511
of the Bankruptcy Code. See Docket Nos. 341, ¶ 4.
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
8 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:200
1 The Court in Esposito further held that it has the inherent power and an implied statutory power
2 pursuant to Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Court to enforce compliance with the orders entered
3 by the Court. See In re Esposito, 119 B.R. at 307.
4 Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part as follows:

5 The Court may issue any order, process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to
carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of
6
an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte,
7 taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or
implement the court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.
8
See 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).
9
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the bankruptcy court “plainly had
10
11 jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own orders.” See In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,
12 557 U.S. 137, 141 (2009) (the Supreme Court upheld the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to enter
13 a “Clarifying Order” interpreting the scope of an injunction contained in a prior order confirming
14 a chapter 11 plan entered in 1986 because the bankruptcy court “plainly had jurisdiction to
15
interpret and enforce its own orders) (citing from Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 239, 54
16
S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934)). The Ninth Circuit clearly recognizes this principle. See In re
17
Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Travelers Indemnity Co., and
18
19 finding that a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to reopen and issue an order to the California
20 Franchise Tax Board, ordering it show cause why it shouldn’t be held in contempt for refusing to
21 comply with the court’s earlier Chapter 11 plan confirmation order).

22 As stated above, this Court has the inherent power and an implied statutory power to
23
enforce the United States Payment Order it entered on March 15, 2018 at Docket No. 413 to
24
require the Debtor to immediately pay the IRS in the amount of $440,291.45, plus accrued
25
interest of $11,709.07. Pursuant to United States Payment Order and the United States
26
27 Payment Stipulation, the Debtor was required to pay the IRS $440,291.45, plus accrued interest
28 of $11,709.07, by May 14, 2018, which the Debtor has failed to do. See Docket Nos. 341 and

Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc
Document
489 Filed
12-5
07/03/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered Page
07/03/18
9 of13:09:22
16 Page ID
Desc
#:201
1 413. As described in detail above, Counsel for the United States made several attempts to
2 informally resolve this matter without success. Pursuant to the United States Payment
3
Stipulation, the Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing subject Stipulation.
4
B. THE UNITED STATES REQUEST THAT THE DEBTOR BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILING
5 TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND BE REQUIRED TO IMMEDIATELY PAY THE
UNITED STATES THE MONIES OWED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
6
7 Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hold Chapter 11 debtors in contempt of court. See
8 In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1189–90 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although the availability of civil contempt
9 sanctions under § 105(a) has a checkered past in our circuit, the recent precedent makes clear
10
that this remedy is available.” (footnote omitted)); Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d
11
502, 507 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that § 524(a) may be enforced by the bankruptcy court's
12
contempt power under § 105(a)); State of Cal. Employment Dev. Dep't. v. Taxel (In re Del
13
Mission Ltd.), 98 F.3d 1147, 1152 n. 5 (9th Cir.1996) (observing that § 105(a) “is the authority
14
15 that authorizes a bankruptcy court to award sanctions for ordinary civil contempt”); Havelock v.
16 Taxel (In re *273 Pace), 67 F.3d 187, 193 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that “a trustee can recover
17 damages in the form of costs and attorney's fees under section 105(a) as a sanction for ordinary
18
civil contempt”). The court noted that “bankruptcy courts derive their civil contempt authority
19
from § 105(a), which provides in relevant part that: ‘The court may issue any order, process, or
20
judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.’” In re Count
21
22 Liberty, LLC, 370 B.R. 259 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 105(a)). In a civil contempt
23 action, the moving party has the burden of showing “by clear and convincing evidence that the
24 contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the
25 contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059,
26
1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th
27
Cir.1999); and see also In re Icenhower 755 F.3d 1120, 1139 (9th Cir. 2014).
28

Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1013:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:202 Page 9 of 15
1 In the present case, the Debtor is in clear violation of the United States Payment Order
2 entered by this Court on March 15, 2018 because the Debtor has failed to make a payment of
3
$440,291.45, plus accrued interest of $11,709.07, to the United States by May 14, 2018, as
4
agreed to by the Debtor in the United States Payment Stipulation and approved by this Court.
5
The United States respectfully request that the Court find the Debtor in contempt of the United
6
7 States Payment Order and require the Debtor to make the delinquent payment within 5 calendar
8 days of the Court entering the Contempt Order. Punishment for civil contempt must be either
9 coercive or compensatory. Dyer, 322 F.3d at 1192; F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River
10
Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1137–38 (9th Cir.2001); Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing
11
Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir.1983); Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 305 B.R. 510, 520
12
(N.D.Cal.2004), appeal dism'd, 158 Fed.Appx. 1, 2005 WL 3046363 (9th Cir.2005). Civil
13
contempt sanctions must be wholly remedial and serve either to coerce an individual into future
14
15 compliance with the court's order or to compensate the complainant for losses resulting from the
16 contemnor's past noncompliance. See, e.g., Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 829, 114 S.Ct. 2552; United
17 States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303–04, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947);
18
Falstaff, 702 F.2d at 778.
19
C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE UNITED STATES REQUESTS THAT THE COURT VACATE THE
20 DISMISSAL ORDER ENTERED ON MARCH 15, 2018 AND REINSTATE THE CHAPTER 11
CASE.
21
22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, which incorporates Rule 60 of
23 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States requests that this Court vacate the order
24 dismissing this case entered on March 15, 2018 at Docket No. 412 and reinstate the Chapter 11
25 case, in the alternative, if the Debtor continues to fail to pay the delinquent monies owed to the
26
United States. Fed. Bank. R. Civ. 9024 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and (6). The Dismissal
27
Order dated March 15, 2018, states in relevant part that this Court “retains post-dismissal
28

Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1113:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:203Page 10 of 15
1 jurisdiction pursuant to LBR 1017-2(f) and as set forth in the Motion.” See Docket No. 412, page
2 4 of 4. This Motion is made in a timely manner under Rule 9024.
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), applicable to this bankruptcy case pursuant to
4
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, provides in pertinent part the following:
5
On motion and just terms ... the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from
6 a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... fraud (whether
7 previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing
party.
8
Alternatively, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), applicable to these bankruptcy
9
cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, provides a basis for relief “for any
10
11 other reason that justifies relief.” Under Rule 60(b)(6), an order “may be set aside when there is
12 any reason not previously considered in the Rule that justifies granting relief.” Community
13 Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002). "Motions under Rule 60(b) are
14
addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and are generally granted only upon a
15
showing of exceptional circumstances.” In re Aztec Supply Corp., 399 B.R. 480, 487-88 (Bnkr.
16
N.D. Ill. 2009) (quoting Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir. 1990)). “Rule
17
60(b)(6) should be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to
18
19 be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action
20 to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Fibercom, Inc. (In re
21 Int'l Fibercom, Inc.), 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted) (citations
22
omitted). "Although Rule 60(b)(6) does not particularize the factors that justify relief . . . it
23
provides courts with authority ‘adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such
24
action is appropriate to accomplish justice. . . .’ " In re Aztec Supply Corp., 399 B.R. at 489 -90
25
26 (citing In re Geberegeorgis, 310 B.R. 61, 69 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Klapprott v. U.S.,
27 335 U.S. 601, 615 (1949)).
28 In this case, the Debtor and its responsible officer Michael Avenatti made

Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1213:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:204Page 11 of 15
1 misrepresentations to the detriment of the United States; the misconduct of the Debtor and its
2 responsible office Michael Avenatti should not be condoned by this Court. Here, the Debtor and
3
its responsible officer Michael Avenatti agreed to pay the United States the remaining balance
4
owed within 120 days of the dismissal. See Docket No. 341. One of the payments was
5
supposed to be paid within 60 days of the dismissal date on March 15, 2018. See Docket No. at
6
7 ¶4. The Debtor, however, did not make this payment on May 14, 2018. As described in detail
8 above, counsel for the United States made several attempts to get the Debtor in compliance, and
9 even provided the Debtor with additional time to make the payment, without success. See
10
Shariff Decl., ¶¶ 4-8. The Debtor and its responsible officer Michael Avenatti have deliberately
11
made no attempts to pay the delinquent amount which they previously agreed to do by
12
Stipulation. There has been minimal communication by Debtor and its counsel, and by Michael
13
Avenatti and his counsel, related to the delinquent payment. There has been no effort or intent
14
15 made by the Debtor to come into compliance with the delinquent payment. It is clear by the
16 Debtor’s inaction and refusal to provide any resolution to the delinquency that it had no intention
17 to make the remaining payments to the United States. It is also apparent that the Debtor was
18
only agreeing to pay these remaining amounts so that the United States would consent to dismiss
19
the case. The United States detrimentally relied upon the Debtor and Michael Avenatti’s
20
representations that the remaining payments would be made. The United States would never
21
22 have agreed to the dismissal unless the Debtor agreed to full pay the claim of the IRS because the
23 Debtor would have been required to pay these amounts through the bankruptcy. The Debtor and
24 its principle Michael Avenatti made misrepresentations to the United States that it’s claim would
25 be fully paid. The United States is requesting that the Dismissal Order be vacated and the
26
Chapter 11 case be reinstated in order so that the Debtor will be required to provide for the
27
delinquent payments through the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Rule 60(b)(6) “provides ‘an equitable
28
remedy to prevent manifest injustice. . . .’” In re Howell, No. SACV15-1883-CAS, LEXIS
Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1313:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:205Page 12 of 15
1 178918 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) at *11-*12 (quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d
2 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005)); and see also In re Pasadena Adult Residential Care, Inc., No. 2:13–
3
bk–28484–RK, 2015 WL 6443216 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2015).
4
CONCLUSION
5
For the reasons stated above, the United States’ Motion to Enforce Order and Find
6
7 Debtor in Contempt; or, in the Alternative, to Vacate Dismissal Order and Reinstate the Chapter
8 11 Case. Furthermore, the Debtors should be required to immediately pay the IRS in the total
9 amount of $440,291.45, plus accrued interest of $11,709.07.

10
11 NICOLA T. HANNA
12
THOMAS D. COKER
Chief, Tax Division
14
Date: July 3, 2018 _/S/_Najah J. Shariff__________________
15 NAJAH J. SHARIFF
16
Attorneys for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1413:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:206Page 13 of 15
Exhibit E-Page 75
Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1513:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:207Page 14 of 15

300 N. Los Angeles Street, Room 7211
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): United States’ Motion to Enforce Order and Find
Debtor in Contempt; Or, in the Alternative, to Vacate Dismissal Order and Reinstate the Chapter 11 Case; and
Declaration of Najah J. Shariff in Support Thereof will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form
and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below:
07/03/2018, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the

On (date) 07/03/2018 , I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) 07/05/2018, I served the
filed.
Honorable Judge Catherine E. Bauer (by Personal Delivery)
Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse
411 West Fourth Street, Suite 5165 / Courtroom 5D
07/03/2018 Barbara Le

Exhibit E-Page 76
Case
8:17-bk-11961-CB Doc 489
Document
Filed 12-5
07/03/18
Filed Entered
09/27/1807/03/18
Page 1613:09:22
of 16 Page
Desc
ID
Main Document
#:208Page 15 of 15
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT (Attachment)

 Christopher Celentino chris.celentino@dinsmore.com, caron.burke@dinsmore.com
ruptcy.com
Eagan Avenatti LLP

520 Newport Center Dr #1400
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Exhibit E-Page 77
Exhibit F - Page 78
Exhibit F - Page 79
Exhibit F - Page 80
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
477 Filed
12-7
06/21/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 06/22/18
Page 2 of15:49:42
3 Page ID
Desc
#:214
Exhibit G - Page 81
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
477 Filed
12-7
06/21/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 06/22/18
Page 3 of15:49:42
3 Page ID
Desc
#:215
Exhibit G - Page 82
Exhibit H - Page 83



document;
DOCUMENTS

following:




Exhibit H - Page 84



liabilities of EA.



2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2016, 2017 and 2018.


present.
party.

compensation.


Exhibit H - Page 85

beneficiary.
party.

Associates, APC.

Michael Q. Eagan.






Exhibit H - Page 86



Maseco.


by EA in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2017 and 2018.

Exhibit H - Page 87
Case
B2550 ((Form 25508:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
– Subpoena
pp and Testifyy at a Hearing 12-8p yFiled
g or Trial in a Bankruptcy 09/27/18
Case or Adversary Page
y Proceeding) g7 2)of
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any): ______________________________________________
on (date) __________ .
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: ____________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________ on (date) ___________________ ; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the
witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ _______________________ .
My fees are $ _________ for travel and $_________ for services, for a total of $_________ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true and correct.
Date: _______________
________________________________________________
Server’s signature
________________________________________________
Printed name and title
________________________________________________
Server’s address
Additional information concerning attempted service, etc.:
Exhibit H - Page 88
Case
B2550 ((Form 25508:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
– Subpoena
pp and Testifyy at a Hearing 12-8p yFiled
g or Trial in a Bankruptcy 09/27/18
Case or Adversary Page
y Proceeding) g8 3)of
the demand.
hearing, or trial.
is resolved.
…
Exhibit H - Page 89
Exhibit H - Page 90
EXHIBIT “I”
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
498 Filed
12-9
07/11/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 07/11/18
Page 2 of15:08:17
3 Page ID
Desc
#:226
2 FILED & ENTERED

3
JUL 11 2018
4
BY firman DEPUTY CLERK
6
10

13 Debtor. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART AMENDED MOTION FOR
14 ASSIGNMENT AND RESTRAINING ORDER
15 Date: July 11, 2018
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Address: 411 W. 4th St, Santa Ana, CA 92701
17
18
19
A hearing was held on July 11, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Catherine E.
20
Bauer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 5D
21
located at 411 West Fourth St., Santa Ana, CA, on the Amended Motion for Entry of
22
Assignment and Restraining Order filed on June 20, 2018 as docket #470 by Jason Frank
23
Law, PLC (“Motion”). Appearances were made as noted on the record.
24
Having reviewed the pleadings and heard the discussion on the record and with good
25
cause shown,
26
IT IS ORDERED:
27
1. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
28
Exhibit I - Page 91
Case
Case
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
498 Filed
12-9
07/11/18
Filed 09/27/18
Entered 07/11/18
Page 3 of15:08:17
3 Page ID
Desc
#:227
2 2. The Motion is granted as follows:
3 Eagan Avenatti, LLP (“Debtor”) is hereby restrained from assigning, encumbering
4 or in any way transferring any proceeds, attorney’s fees, costs, rights to payments
5 and accounts receivable it is or may be entitled to receive from the lawsuits and
6 clients listed on Exhibit A to the Frank Declaration attached to the Motion (the
7 “Cases”), as well as any rent payments from Debtor’s tenants.
8 Debtor shall file with the Court and serve on Jason Frank Law, PLC, the Internal
9 Revenue Service, the Official Committee of Creditors, and their respective counsel,
10 a notice of any hearing or proceeding regarding attorney’s fees in any of the Cases
11 (regardless of whether Debtor is designated as a possible payee). Notice shall be
12 filed and served at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing or proceeding.
13 Debtor shall also file with the Court and serve on Jason Frank Law, PLC, the
14 Internal Revenue Service, the Official Committee of Creditors, and their respective
15 counsel, a notice of receipt of any monies in relation to the Cases, regardless of
16 whether the payment is made to Debtor, Avenatti & Associates, Michael Avenatti, or
17 Michael Eagan, or any entity controlled by Debtor, Avenatti & Associates, Michael
18 Avenatti, or Michael Eagan.
19 3. To the extent the Motion is not granted in Paragraph 2, it is denied without prejudice.
20
21 ###
22
23
Date: July 11, 2018
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit I - Page 92
EXHIBIT “J”
Document1 12-10
Filed 09/04/18
Filed 09/27/18
Page Page
1 of 3 2 Page
of 4 Page
ID #:1ID #:229
Exhibit J - Page 93
Document1 12-10
Filed 09/04/18
Filed 09/27/18
Page Page
2 of 3 3 Page
of 4 Page
ID #:2ID #:230
Exhibit J - Page 94
Document1 12-10
Filed 09/04/18
Filed 09/27/18
Page Page
3 of 3 4 Page
of 4 Page
ID #:3ID #:231
Exhibit J - Page 95

3 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 310.788.9900
5 Facsimile: 310.788.3399
6 Jason M. Frank, State Bar No. 190957
jfrank@lawfss.com
7 Scott Sims, State Bar No. 234148
ssims@lawfss.com
9 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.201.2400
10
11
12
13
LOS ANGELES DIVISION
14
15
Case No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES
16 In re
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
17 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE
FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
18 Debtor.
20
21
22
Based on the Motion for Withdrawal of the Reference (“Motion”), the pleadings in
23
support of the Motion, any opposition thereto, the arguments of counsel, good cause for the relief
24
sought therein being shown; and finding notice of the Motion was proper; it is hereby
25
ORDERED that the Motion is granted. The reference of all remaining proceedings in
26
Case No. 8:17- bk-11961-CB, currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
27
28
141427771.1 -1-
1 Central District of California is hereby withdrawn to this Court. The Clerk of this Court is
2 directed to take all actions to effectuate this withdrawal of reference.
3 Dated: October __, 2018 _________________________________
4 Virginia A. Phillips, Chief United States
District Judge
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141427771.1 -2-

3 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 310.788.9900
5 Facsimile: 310.788.3399
jfrank@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
9 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.201.2400
10
11

14 LOS ANGELES DIVISION
15
16 In re Case No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES

EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP,
17 Debtor. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON
18 HEARING ON MOTION FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE
19 FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
20 AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION
OF SARA L. CHENETZ IN SUPPORT
21 THEREOF
22
JUDGE: HON. VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
23
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that judgment creditor, Jason Frank Law, PLC
25 (“JFL”) hereby moves this Court by way of this ex parte application for entry of an
26 order shortening the time for hearing on JFL’s Motion for Withdrawal of the
27 Reference from the Bankruptcy Court (“Withdrawal Motion”) of post-dismissal
28 proceedings in bankruptcy case, In re Eagan Avenatti, LLP, Bankruptcy Case No.
141432359.1 -1-
1 8:17-11961-CB. JFL requests the Withdrawal Motion be heard on or before

2 October 8, 2018. A copy of the Withdrawal Motion is being filed and served
3 concurrently with this application.
4 This application is made pursuant to Local Rule 7-19. Good cause exists for
5 the relief sought. As discussed in further detail in the memorandum and declaration
6 of Jason M. Frank in support of the Withdrawal Motion, a hearing in the above-
7 captioned case is scheduled to be held on October 10, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. before
8 United States Magistrate Judge Scott on a protective order motion previously
9 pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
10 California before the Honorable Catherine E. Bauer (the “Bankruptcy Court.”) The
11 motion relates to the enforcement of a $10 Million Judgment entered by the
12 Bankruptcy Court in favor of JFL against Judgment Debtor Eagan Avenatti, LLP
13 (“EA”). The Bankruptcy Court has indicated it intends to abstain from ruling on
14 the motion and any further proceedings regarding the enforcement of the Judgment
15 because it believes “[t]he parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy venues
16 available to them for resolution of their ongoing issues.”
17 At a status conference held before Judge Scott on September 24, 2018, EA
18 questioned whether this Court could or should rule on the protective order motion,
19 even though the Bankruptcy Court had already indicated its intent to abstain. The
20 Bankruptcy Court continued the hearing on its Notice of Intent to Abstain until
21 October 10, 2018 so that JFL could seek to have the reference withdrawn by this
22 Court prior to that date, so that all proceedings would be transferred before this
23 Court. To ensure there is no question that Judge Scott may rule on the protective
24 order motion at the October 10 hearing and the Bankruptcy Court may abstain as it
25 wishes on that date, the hearing on the Withdrawal Motion should be scheduled
26 prior to October 8, 2018.
27
28
141432359.1 -2-

2
By: /s/ Sara L. Chenetz
3 Sara L. Chenetz
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141432359.1 -3-

2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 JFL seeks entry of an order scheduling a hearing on its Withdrawal Motion
4 on or before October 8, 2018. Good cause exists for the relief requested.
5 This matter concerns the enforcement of a $10 Million judgment in favor of
6 JFL against EA entered by the Bankruptcy Court on May 22, 2018. [See
7 Declaration of Jason M. Frank filed with Withdrawal Motion (“Frank Decl.”), Exh.
8 A.] The Judgment was entered due to EA’s breach of a structured settlement that
9 EA entered into with JFL and other creditors as a condition to the Bankruptcy Court
10 granting EA’s motion to dismiss its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. [Id., ¶ 9, Exhs. C,
11 D.] The Bankruptcy Court retained post-dismissal jurisdiction to enforce the terms
12 of the Structured Settlement and Dismissal Order. [Id., Exh. C, § 3, Exh. D, ¶ 10.]
13 For approximately the last three months, the Bankruptcy Court has presided
14 over proceedings concerning the enforcement of the Judgment. However, on
15 August 30, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Notice of Intent to Abstain from
16 any further proceedings in the dismissed bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
17 305(a). [Frank Decl., Exh. B.] The Bankruptcy Court found that “the interests of
18 creditors and the Debtor [EA] would be better served if the Court abstains” because
19 “[t]he structured settlement in this case, which resulted in dismissal, consensually
20 altered the parties’ positions in ways that make it untenable to continue in
21 bankruptcy court” and “[t]he parties have other better-situated nonbankruptcy
22 venues available to them for resolution of their ongoing issues.” [Frank Decl., Exh.
23 B.]
24 At the time it issued its Abstention Notice, the Bankruptcy Court had a
25 number of pending motions before it, including EA’s motion for a protective order
26 seeking to quash a Judgment Debtor Exam subpoena (the “ORAP Subpoena”).
27 After receiving the Abstention Notice, JFL registered its Judgment before this
28 Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1963. [Frank Decl., Exh. J.] JFL thereafter filed a
141432359.1 -1-
1 Motion to Set a Hearing Date on EA’s Motion for Protective Order so that JFL
2 could move forward with the Judgment Debtor Exam (the “ORAP”). [Doc. No. 6.]
3 The matter was assigned to this Court and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, Case
4 No. 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES. [Doc. No. 8.]
5 On September 24, 2018, Judge Scott held a status conference in which she
6 indicated she is “ready, willing and able” to rule on EA’s motion for protective
7 order and set a hearing date for October 10, 2018. [Frank Decl., ¶ 24.] However,
8 during the status conference, EA suggested it may challenge whether the motion is
9 properly before this Court. [Id.] The parties thereafter informed the Bankruptcy
10 Court of these developments. [Id., ¶ 25.] The Bankruptcy Court continued the
11 hearing on its Notice of Intent to Abstain to October 10, 2018, so that JFL may file
12 a Withdrawal Motion to transfer all proceedings to this Court and eliminate any
13 challenges to the propriety of Judge Scott ruling on the protective order motion.
14 Accordingly, good cause exists to hear the Withdrawal Motion on or before
15 October 8, 2018 to ensure there is no question that Judge Scott may rule on the
16 protective order motion at the October 10 hearing and the Bankruptcy Court may
17 abstain from further proceedings as it wishes on that date. Delaying a hearing on
18 the Protective Order Motion and the Withdrawal Motion would unduly and unfairly
19 further delay Judgment enforcement proceedings, which effectively have been in
20 abeyance since the Bankruptcy Court stated its intent to abstain on August 30,
21 2018.
22 II. SERVICE
23 The street address for Mr. Avenatti found at www.Avenatti.com is 520
24 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400, Newport Beach, CA 92660, phone number 949-
25 706-7000. This also is the address for Eagan Avenatti, LLP. The law firm of
26 Raines Feldman LLP, at 1800 Avenue of the Stars, 12th floor, Los Angeles, CA
27 90067 and telephone number 310-440-4100, is counsel of record for EA in the EA
28 Bankruptcy Case. Hamid Rafatjoo, a member of Raines Feldman LLP, previously
141432359.1 -2-
1 indicated that Raines Feldman LLP is not representing EA in the District Court
2 proceedings. Service of the Motion and Application is set forth in the
3 accompanying declaration of Sara L. Chenetz.
4 III. CONCLUSION
5 For the foregoing reasons, JFL respectfully requests the Court schedule a
6 hearing on the Withdrawal Motion on or before October 8, 2018, direct that any
7 opposition to the Withdrawal Motion be filed and served via email on counsel for
8 Judgment Creditor on or before two days before the hearing, authorize service of
9 the notice of the Hearing via email on Michael Avenatti at
10 mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com and via telephone at 949-706-7000, and grant such
11 other relief as may be just and proper.
12

14
By: /s/ Sara L. Chenetz________________
15 Sara L. Chenetz
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141432359.1 -3-
1 DECLARATION OF SARA L. CHENETZ

2 I, Sara L. Chenetz, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice law before this
4 Court. I am a partner in Perkins Coie LLP, co-counsel to Jason Frank Law, PLC
5 (“JFL”) in this case. Perkins Coie LLP has been counsel to JFL in the Eagan
6 Avenatti, LLP bankruptcy case throughout its pendency in the Central District of
7 California. I submit this declaration regarding service of the Ex Parte Application
8 (“Application”) for Order Shortening Time on Hearing on Motion for Withdrawal
9 of the Reference from the Bankruptcy Court (“Motion”) filed by JFL.
10 2. I have personal knowledge of the prior Bankruptcy Court and
11 District Court proceedings discussed in the Application and related motion and
12 know them to be true. I was present in Judge Scott’s courtroom during the
13 September 24, 2018 status conference and those proceedings are described to the
14 best of my recollection and from notes I took during the conference.
15 3. On September 26, 2018, I searched for contact information for
16 Michael Avenatti on the internet and at www.avenatti.com the email address and
17 phone number set forth in the accompanying memorandum are indicated. A
18 printout of this webpage is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Mr. Avenatti appeared at
19 that status conference on behalf of Eagan Avenatti, LLP. Throughout the
20 bankruptcy case, Mr. Avenatti stated he is the managing partner of Eagan Avenatti,
21 LLP.
22 4. On September 27, 2018, at approximately 12:25 p.m., I sent copies of
23 the Motion, Application and their respective supporting memoranda and
24 declarations and proposed orders to Michael Avenatti at
25 mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com and Hamid Rafatjoo, of Raines Feldman LLP, at
26 hrafatjoo@raineslaw.com. A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
27 Raines Feldman LLP remains as counsel of record to JFL in the Bankruptcy Case.
28 Mr. Rafatjoo previously indicated to me that Raines Feldman is not counsel to JFL
141432359.1 -4-
1 in the District Court proceedings. I additionally left a message at approximately

2 10:58 a.m., on September 27, 2018, with Virginia who answered the telephone
3 number listed on avenatti.com indicating this Application and the Motion would be
4 filed today.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
6 America that the foregoing this true and correct. Executed this 27th day of
7 September 2018.
8
9
/s/ Sara L. Chenetz_______
10 SARA L. CHENETZ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141432359.1 -5-
Exhibit 1 - Page 6
Exhibit 2 - Page 7

3 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 310.788.9900
5 Facsimile: 310.788.3399
jfrank@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
9 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.201.2400
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 In re
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
17 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE
FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
18 Debtor.
20
21
22
Based on the Motion for Withdrawal of the Reference (“Motion”), the pleadings in
23
support of the Motion, any opposition thereto, the arguments of counsel, good cause for the relief
24
sought therein being shown; and finding notice of the Motion was proper; it is hereby
25
ORDERED that the Motion is granted. The reference of all remaining proceedings in
26
Case No. 8:17- bk-11961-CB, currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
27
28
141427771.1 -1-
1 Central District of California is hereby withdrawn to this Court. The Clerk of this Court is
2 directed to take all actions to effectuate this withdrawal of reference.
3 Dated: October __, 2018 _________________________________
4 Virginia A. Phillips, Chief United States
District Judge
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141427771.1 -2-

3 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 310.788.9900
5 Facsimile: 310.788.3399
jfrank@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
9 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949.201.2400
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 In re
18 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, PROOF OF SERVICE
19 Debtor.
20
JUDGE: HON. VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
141458705.1 -1-
Name and address:
Andrew D. Stolper (SBN 205462)
astolper@lawfss.com
FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
Irvine, California 92612
T: 949-201-2400
F: 949-201-2405

In Re Eagan Avenatti, LLP CASE NUMBER:
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KESx
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
DEFENDANT(S)
INSTRUCTIONS
Appearance of Counsel:
Attorneys may use this form to enter an appearance in a case, or to update the docket of a case to reflect a prior
appearance. To do so, complete Sections I, II, and IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case. (Using an
attorney's CM/ECF login and password to file this form will expedite the addition of that attorney to the docket as counsel
of record.)
Withdrawal of Counsel:
This form may be used to terminate an attorney's status as counsel of record for a party in three situations: (1) the
attorney being terminated has already been relieved by the Court, but the docket does not yet reflect that fact; (2) at least
one member of the attorney's firm or agency will continue to represent that party and the withdrawing attorney is not the
only member of the Bar of this Court representing that party; or (3) the represented party has been dismissed from the
case, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic filing. For any of these situations, complete Sections I, III,
and IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case.
Note: In situations not covered above, attorneys seeking to withdraw from a case must first obtain permission from the
Court. In such circumstances, attorneys should complete and file a "Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of
Counsel" (Form G-01) rather than this "Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel" (Form G-123). See Form G-01 for
further information.
SECTION I - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Please complete the following information for the attorney you wish to add or remove (if removing an attorney, provide the
information as it currently appears on the docket; if appearing pro hac vice, enter "PHV" in the field for "CA Bar Number"):
Name: Andrew D. Stolper CA Bar Number: 205462

Firm or agency: FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
Address: 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855, Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone Number: 949-201-2400 Fax Number: 949-201-2405

Email: astolper@lawfss.com
Counsel of record for the following party or parties: Jason Frank Law, PLC
G-123 (9/17) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL Page 1 of 2

SECTION II - TO ADD AN ATTORNEY TO THE DOCKET

Please select one of the following options:
The attorney listed above has already appeared as counsel of record in this case and should have been added to the
docket. The date of the attorney's first appearance in this case: .
The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. Other members of
this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.
The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. No other members
of this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.
By order of the court dated _____________________ in case number ________________________ (see attached
copy), the attorney listed above may appear in this case without applying for admission to practice pro hac vice.
This case was transferred to this district by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407 from the _______________ District of ____________________, where it was assigned case number
____________________. The attorney listed above is counsel of record in this case in the transferee district, and is
permitted by the rules of the JPML to continue to represent his or her client in this district without applying for
admission to practice pro hac vice and without the appointment of local counsel.
On ______________________, the attorney listed above was granted permission to appear in this case pro hac vice
before the Bankruptcy Court, and L.Bankr.R. 8 authorizes the continuation of that representation in this case before
the District Court.
In addition, if this is a criminal case, please check the applicable box below. The attorney listed above is:
USAO FPDO CJA Appointment Pro Bono Retained
SECTION III - TO REMOVE AN ATTORNEY FROM THE DOCKET

Notices of Electronic Filing will be terminated. Please select one of the following options:
The attorney named above has already been relieved by the Court as counsel of record in this case and should
have been removed from the docket. Date of the order relieving this attorney: .
Please remove the attorney named above from the docket of this case; at least one member of the firm or agency
named above, and at least one member of the Bar of this Court, will continue to serve as counsel of record for the
party or parties indicated.
(Note: if you are removing yourself from the docket of this case as a result of separating from a firm or agency, you
should consult Local Rules 5-4.8.1 and 83-2.4 and Form G-06 (“Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact
Information”), concerning your obligations to notify the Clerk and parties of changes in your business or contact
information.)
The represented party has been dismissed from the case, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic
filing. Date party was dismissed: .
The attorney named above was appointed on appeal and the appeal has been adjudicated. Date the mandate was
filed: .
SECTION IV - SIGNATURE
I request that the Clerk update the docket as indicated above.
Date: October 2, 2018 Signature: /s/ Andrew D. Stolper
Name: Andrew D. Stolper

Name and address:
Scott H. Sims (SBN 234148)
ssims@lawfss.com
FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
Irvine, California 92612
T: 949-201-2400
F: 949-201-2405

In Re Eagan Avenatti, LLP CASE NUMBER:
8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KESx
PLAINTIFF(S)
v.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
DEFENDANT(S)
INSTRUCTIONS
Appearance of Counsel:
Attorneys may use this form to enter an appearance in a case, or to update the docket of a case to reflect a prior
appearance. To do so, complete Sections I, II, and IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case. (Using an
attorney's CM/ECF login and password to file this form will expedite the addition of that attorney to the docket as counsel
of record.)
Withdrawal of Counsel:
This form may be used to terminate an attorney's status as counsel of record for a party in three situations: (1) the
attorney being terminated has already been relieved by the Court, but the docket does not yet reflect that fact; (2) at least
one member of the attorney's firm or agency will continue to represent that party and the withdrawing attorney is not the
only member of the Bar of this Court representing that party; or (3) the represented party has been dismissed from the
case, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic filing. For any of these situations, complete Sections I, III,
and IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case.
Note: In situations not covered above, attorneys seeking to withdraw from a case must first obtain permission from the
Court. In such circumstances, attorneys should complete and file a "Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of
Counsel" (Form G-01) rather than this "Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel" (Form G-123). See Form G-01 for
further information.
SECTION I - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Please complete the following information for the attorney you wish to add or remove (if removing an attorney, provide the
information as it currently appears on the docket; if appearing pro hac vice, enter "PHV" in the field for "CA Bar Number"):
Name: Scott H. Sims CA Bar Number: 234148

Firm or agency: FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
Address: 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855, Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone Number: 949-201-2400 Fax Number: 949-201-2405

Email: ssims@lawfss.com
Counsel of record for the following party or parties: Jason Frank Law, PLC

SECTION II - TO ADD AN ATTORNEY TO THE DOCKET

Please select one of the following options:
The attorney listed above has already appeared as counsel of record in this case and should have been added to the
docket. The date of the attorney's first appearance in this case: .
The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. Other members of
this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.
The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. No other members
of this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.
By order of the court dated _____________________ in case number ________________________ (see attached
copy), the attorney listed above may appear in this case without applying for admission to practice pro hac vice.
This case was transferred to this district by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407 from the _______________ District of ____________________, where it was assigned case number
____________________. The attorney listed above is counsel of record in this case in the transferee district, and is
permitted by the rules of the JPML to continue to represent his or her client in this district without applying for
admission to practice pro hac vice and without the appointment of local counsel.
On ______________________, the attorney listed above was granted permission to appear in this case pro hac vice
before the Bankruptcy Court, and L.Bankr.R. 8 authorizes the continuation of that representation in this case before
the District Court.
In addition, if this is a criminal case, please check the applicable box below. The attorney listed above is:
USAO FPDO CJA Appointment Pro Bono Retained
SECTION III - TO REMOVE AN ATTORNEY FROM THE DOCKET

Notices of Electronic Filing will be terminated. Please select one of the following options:
The attorney named above has already been relieved by the Court as counsel of record in this case and should
have been removed from the docket. Date of the order relieving this attorney: .
Please remove the attorney named above from the docket of this case; at least one member of the firm or agency
named above, and at least one member of the Bar of this Court, will continue to serve as counsel of record for the
party or parties indicated.
(Note: if you are removing yourself from the docket of this case as a result of separating from a firm or agency, you
should consult Local Rules 5-4.8.1 and 83-2.4 and Form G-06 (“Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact
Information”), concerning your obligations to notify the Clerk and parties of changes in your business or contact
information.)
The represented party has been dismissed from the case, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic
filing. Date party was dismissed: .
The attorney named above was appointed on appeal and the appeal has been adjudicated. Date the mandate was
filed: .
SECTION IV - SIGNATURE
I request that the Clerk update the docket as indicated above.
Date: October 2, 2018 Signature: /s/ Scott H. Sims
Name: Scott H. Sims

Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1-16 Filed 09/04/18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1-16 Filed 09/04/18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1

Case 8:18-cv-01644-VAP-KES Document 1 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2

1 Daniel J. Weintraub, State Bar No. 132111

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 Case No. 8:18-mc-00027

1 MOTION TO SET HEARING DATE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S

1 Michael Avenatti, or Michael Eagan, or any entity controlled by Debtor [EA],

9 __________________________________By /s/ James R. Selth____________

1 DECLARATION OF JASON M. FRANK

1 6. EA failed to pay the amounts owed under the JFL contract.

1 12. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena to

1 Sara L. Chenetz, SBN 206936

8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA DIVISION

11 In re Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB

20 Cents, on May 22, 2018 as Docket #444,

24 Date: May 22, 2018

1 Richard M. Pachulski, SBN 90073

7 Attorneys for Debtor and Debtor in Possession

8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA DIVISION

11 In re: Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB

12 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Chapter 11

13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION

24 Appearances were made as noted on the record.

3 identified claims (“Identified Claims”).

11 effectuate the Settlement Agreement, and the Case is dismissed.

15 of whether there is a stay pending appeal.

20 request from a holder of an Identified Claim per the below.

24 performance of services at Eagan Avenatti, LLP.

4 8. Holders of Identified Claims shall be paid the liquidated, non-contingent prepetition

16 on entry of this order.

2 forth in the Motion.

24 Date: March 15, 2018

2 FILED & ENTERED

8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA DIVISION

11 In re Case No. 8:17-bk-11961-CB

12 EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP, Chapter 11

13 Debtor. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ABSTAIN

14 Date: September 24, 2018

5 them for resolution of their ongoing issues.

The documents described below are to be produced by Judgment

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e)(2)(A), made

a) The name(s) of the writes, sender or initiator of each

Any and all documents of any nature evidencing the existence

1. All bank statements for all accounts in the name of EA, or in

2. All financial statements prepared by EA or on its behalf,

3. All documents relating to the lease of the property at 520

4. All documents concerning the ownership and management of EA,

5. All documents relating to or evidencing all assets owned by

6. All documents relating to or evidencing all current

7. All insurance policies for EA, or any business owned by or

8. Complete federal and state income tax returns filed for EA

9. All profit and loss statements prepared for EA for 2013,

11. A list of all EA clients from January 1, 2014 to the present.

12. A list of all currently pending lawsuits in which EA

13. A list of all currently pending lawsuits in which EA formerly

16. Any and all agreements in which EA is entitled to any fees or

17. Any and all rent or sublease agreements in which EA is

19. Any and all agreements in which EA is a third-party

21. Documents evidencing all payments over $1,000.00 from January

22. Documents evidencing all payments over $1,000.00 from January

23. All agreements between EA and Avenatti & Associates, APC,

9 ______________________By /s/ James R. Selth