Vokshori Law Group v. Villa

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 7, 2022
• Docket: 20-01054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 FRESNO DIVISION 3 4 In re ) Case No. 20-12269-B-7 ) 5 ANTHONY WILLIAM VILLA, ) ) 6 ) Debtor. ) 7 ) ) 8 ) VOKSHORI LAW GROUP, a ) Adv. Proceeding No. 20-1054-B 9 Professional Law Corporation, ) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ) 11 ) v. ) 12 ) ANTHONY WILLIAM VILLA, ) 13 ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 ANTHONY WILLIAM VILLA, ) ) 16 ) Counter-Plaintiff, ) 17 ) v. ) 18 ) 19 VOKSHORI LAW GROUP, a ) ) Professional Law Corporation, ) 20 ) 21 Counter-Defendant. ) ) 22 23 24 MEMORANDUM DECISION 25 Before: René Lastreto II, Bankruptcy Judge 26 __________________ 27 Luke Jackson, VOKSHORI LAW GROUP, APLC, Los Angeles, CA, for 28 Vokshori Law Group, Plaintiff. Timothy C. Springer, LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY C. SPRINGER, Fresno, 1 CA, for Anthony William Villa, Defendant.

2 _____________________

3 RENÉ LASTRETO II, Bankruptcy Judge: 4 5 INTRODUCTION 6 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt of 7 an individual “for money, property, [or] services . . . to the 8 extent obtained by—(A) false pretenses, a false representation, 9 or actual fraud.”1 A law firm successfully performed services and 10 achieved a favorable loan modification for a debtor and his 11 spouse, but they were not paid for their services when the bill 12 came due. Finding that there was not a preponderance of evidence 13 on the issues of intent and justifiable reliance, the court here 14 finds in favor of the debtor. The debt owed the firm is 15 dischargeable. 16 17 I. 18 A. 19 Anthony Villa (“Anthony”) and his spouse, Maria, found 20 themselves in the throes of financial difficulty in late 2017.2 21 Though Maria was employed, Anthony was on disability. They were 22 eight months behind on their mortgage payments. Their income was 23 not high enough to maintain their expenses. They wanted to save 24

25 1 Future references to Code sections will, unless otherwise indicated, be referred to by section. Future references to the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure will be to “Civ. Rule” and references to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will be referred to as “Rule” unless otherwise 27 indicated. 28 to as “2 AT nh tr ho ou ng yh ”o u at n dt h “i Ms a rm ie am ”o r oa rn d “u tm h, e A Vn it lh lo an sy . ”a n Td h eM a cr oi ua r tV i ml el aa n sw i nl ol db ie s rr ee sf pe er cr te d and makes those references for ease of following the narrative. 1 their Los Banos, California residence at 1636 Maidencane Way 2 from foreclosure.3 3 Anthony learned of Vokshori Law Group (“VLG”). They offered 4 loan modification services. He contacted them in late December 5 and spoke with employees Patsy Chanthavongsor and Ann Okada. He 6 eventually was transferred to a third, Phil Alvarez. Anthony and 7 Maria signed VLG’s Legal Services Agreement (“LSA”). In early 8 conversations, Anthony said he and Maria had filed bankruptcy in 9 2010. VLG employees discussed bankruptcy with Anthony. He was 10 asked to send numerous documents, including pay stubs. A few 11 days later, Anthony emailed documents to VLG. In early January 12 2017, responsibility for Anthony and Maria’s situation was 13 transferred to VLG employee Nadia Sommereyns. Nadia was Anthony 14 and Maria’s primary contact at VLG after that. 15 A word about the LSA. The agreement says VLG would 16 represent the Villas for a loan modification of their first 17 mortgage with Caliber Home Mortgage. Services to be performed 18 are listed. VLG’s compensation consists of both a flat fee and 19 success fee component. The flat fee was $2,800. After 4 months, 20 a monthly maintenance fee of $325 was charged. If VLG 21 successfully negotiated a modification, it would be entitled to 22 $350 for a trial modification. Upon a final modification, VLG 23 would be entitled under the agreement to 3.6 times the monthly 24 savings plus 10% of any amount of principal or arrears deferred, 25 forgiven, or waived. Though VLG did perform bankruptcy services, 26 they were excluded from coverage of the LSA.4

27 3 A few months earlier they qualified for a modification but that was 28 unsucce 4 s Vs Lf Gu ’l s. principal, Stephen Vokshori, a licensed attorney, testified that his firm does file chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcies. 1 Some confusion about the documents VLG needed arose in 2 early January. Anthony followed up to be sure all documents were 3 sent in. They were. Among those was Anthony and Maria’s monthly 4 household budget; it showed a negative balance at the end of the 5 month. VLG went to work contacting Caliber’s servicer, 6 Shellpoint. 7 But Anthony and Maria received much correspondence about 8 the default under their home loan from third parties. They began 9 to become very concerned. In late January, their mortgage 10 holder, Caliber, recorded a notice of default. 11 In early and mid-February, there were tense communications 12 between VLG and Anthony. Anthony was not satisfied with the 13 speed of VLG’s responsiveness. Anthony expressed a few times 14 that the extent of his unsecured debt (credit cards plus student 15 loan debt) would necessitate a bankruptcy filing. VLG contacted 16 the servicer who confirmed the residence was in foreclosure, but 17 no sale date was set. VLG’s Phil Alvarez again spoke with 18 Anthony about bankruptcy options. By mid-March, Anthony told 19 Nadia that he and Maria were going to consult with a bankruptcy 20 attorney since they were dissatisfied with the modification 21 progress. 22 In late March, Nadia urged Anthony to give the modification 23 route “a try” before “throwing in the towel” and filing 24 bankruptcy.5 In early April, Anthony and Maria’s first mortgage 25 loan owner changed to New Penn Financial. Near the end of April

26 5 Anthony has filed previous bankruptcy cases. Two in the Northern District of California: a chapter 13, Case No. 00-55016 filed on October 12, 27 2000, which was dismissed in early 2001, and a chapter 7, Case No. 03-55410 28 f Di il se td r iA cu tg ,u s At n t2 h2 o, n y2 0 f0 il2 e, d r ae s cu hl at pi tn eg r i 7n oa n d Si es pc th ea mr bg ee r i 1n 0 ,e a 2r 0l 1y 1 ,2 0 C0 a3 s. e I Nn o .t h 1i 1s - 60203, resulting in a discharge December 20, 2011. 1 and early May, VLG sent documents to New Penn Financial. Anthony 2 provided additional documents once asked. 3 Shellpoint, who remained the servicer, had received all 4 necessary documents to evaluate the modification request by mid- 5 May. A trial loan modification was then approved. VLG notified 6 Anthony and Maria. The trial modification was for three months 7 and included a principal deferment. Payments were about $460.00 8 less per month than before. The interest rate was 4.25% and the 9 three-month trial period began on July 1, 2018.6 Shellpoint 10 wanted the payments during the trial period by auto pay, which 11 Anthony and Maria agreed to do. 12 The Villas made all three trial payments. 13 Near the end of September, Anthony and Maria told VLG they 14 were going through a divorce. Maria wanted to sell the 15 residence. VLG suggested they wait until the modification was 16 finalized. Shellpoint sent the permanent modification to the 17 Villas at their residence. Anthony requested time to collect all 18 signatures, as well as a delay for the first payment under the 19 permanent modification.7 In early October, Anthony told VLG he 20 and Maria were going to or had signed the permanent 21 modification. But he also mentioned he wanted to file Chapter 22 13. Anthony testified he was living in his car, and he purchased 23 a car since he was using it as a residence at times. Anthony 24 asked how the contract would be affected in a Chapter 13. 25

26 6 In early June, Anthony thought their residence was sold. He contacted Nadia at VLG, and Nadia found that it had not been sold and reported that to 27 Anthony. 28 modific7 aI tn i of na c wt a, s A nn ot th o yn ey t h ca od m pb le ee tn e t bo yl d O cb te of bo er re 1t ,h a tt o i ef x pt eh ce t p te or m ma an ke en t a nother payment provided in the trial modification. 1 The relationship between VLG and the Villas then 2 deteriorated. VLG sent an invoice for their fees totaling 3 $6,346.06 in mid-October.8 By the end of October, New Penn 4 Financial had incorporated the permanent modification for the 5 loan. Anthony told Nadia in a phone conversation he was having 6 surgery, he needed to go to court on the family law issues and 7 wanted three weeks to make payment arrangements. That was not 8 acceptable to VLG who wanted at least an immediate down payment 9 on the balance. Further contact between Anthony, Maria, and VLG 10 was fruitless. 11 Months passed and many voice mails and contact attempts by 12 VLG to Anthony went unheeded. On March 1, 2019, five months 13 after the permanent loan modification was approved, Anthony 14 filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Northern District of 15 California (19-50435). VLG filed an adversary proceeding 16 contesting the discharge of its debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) 17 (fraud). Adv. Proc. No. 19-05030. But the bankruptcy (and the 18 adversary proceeding) was dismissed six months later before plan 19 confirmation. In January 2020, Maria filed her own bankruptcy 20 case in the Northern District of California (20-50017). VLG 21 filed an adversary proceeding (20-05023) in that case but about 22 a year and one-half after the bankruptcy case was filed, it was 23 dismissed for Maria’s failure to make plan payments. The 24 adversary proceeding was also dismissed.9 25 26 8 California law precludes VLG from collecting fees for loan 27 modification services until it has completed its services. Cal. Civ. Code § 28 2944.7 9 ( TD he ee r ci on ug rs t 2 t0 a2 k2 e) s. judicial notice of the adjudicative facts about the bankruptcy proceedings under Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 On July 4, 2020, Anthony filed this bankruptcy case. VLG 2 timely filed this adversary proceeding contesting the discharge 3 of their debt under § 523(a)(2)(A). Anthony, through counsel, 4 filed a counterclaim for attorneys’ fees under § 523(d) if he 5 was successful in the litigation. Following discovery and 6 pandemic-related delays, the case was tried on March 31, 2022. 7 The parties have stipulated that the debt at issue here is a 8 consumer debt under § 101(8) and that no payment has been made 9 on the debt.10 10 11 B. 12 VLG offered one witness: Stephen Vokshori, the attorney 13 principal of VLG. The court found Mr. Vokshori knowledgeable, 14 experienced, and very familiar with bankruptcy law and practice. 15 He was forthright in his answers to cross-examination questions, 16 but his testimony suffered from one shortcoming: a lack of 17 personal knowledge of the communications his staff had with 18 Anthony and Maria. He had to rely on an ongoing real time 19 contemporaneous log of the interactions between staff, the loan 20 servicers, and the Villas.11 To be sure, the notes were admitted 21 in evidence since they were relevant and were business records. 22 But Mr. Vokshori had to speculate about the effect of those 23 interactions highlighted by both counsel during the trial. 24 Anthony did not really dispute the contents of contemporaneous 25 notes, but the effect of these entries on the case here is left 26 to speculation. 27 28 1 10 1 A Vm Le Gn ’d se d c oJ uo ni sn et l P ar ne dt r Mi ra .l VO or kd se hr o, r iD o rc e. f e# r9 8 t, o a tt h e5 s. e contemporaneous notes as the “ACT database.” 1 Anthony was his only witness. The court found him sincere, 2 but he was not specific on many details when cross-examined by 3 VLG’s counsel. VLG attacked Anthony’s credibility. First, there 4 was a question of whether Anthony was forthright with VLG when 5 he first discussed the extent of his unsecured debt. There was a 6 large discrepancy in the contemporaneous notes. Anthony first 7 stated his unsecured debt was between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00— 8 primarily from credit cards. But his unsecured debt was larger 9 when outstanding student loans were considered. Anthony 10 explained that to him the debts were different. True when one 11 considers the effect of discharge. 12 VLG also contends that Anthony’s testimony was uneven and 13 contradictory on certain points. The one specific example 14 pertained to testimony about who his initial contacts were at 15 VLG. Anthony’s pre-trial declaration stated his initial contact 16 was with Annie Okada. VLG disputed that, relying upon the 17 contemporaneous log. But the log entry on December 19, 2017 18 contained a description of a phone conference with Anthony that 19 was entered by Ann Okada. Patsy Chanthavongsor may have 20 initially spoke to Anthony and then transferred the call.12 21 Anthony did alter his testimony by saying he remembered his 22 first contact was a female. This is a discrepancy, but to the 23 court an insignificant one. Anthony did not remember certain 24 details, but there was little dispute about the accuracy of the 25 log entries. 26 /// 27 /// 28

12 Px 2, at 116. 1 II. 2 A. 3 The United States District Court for the Eastern District 4 of California has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1334(b) since this is a civil proceeding arising under Title 6 11 of the United States Code. The District Court has referred 7 this matter to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This is a 8 “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Even if found 9 to be “non-core,” the parties have agreed this court may enter 10 orders finally disposing of this proceeding.13 11 12 B. 13 To exclude a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), a 14 creditor must establish that: 15 1) The debtor made representations. 16 2) That at the time he knew they were false. 17 3) That he made them with the intention and purpose of 18 deceiving the creditor. 19 4) That the creditor justifiably relied on such 20 representations. 21 5) That the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as 22 a proximate result of the representations having been made. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Hashemi (In re 23 24 Hashemi), 104 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Turtle 25 Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n. v. Slyman (In re Slyman), 234 26 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). “[M]ere failure to fulfill [a] 27 promise to pay [a] debt is dischargeable, unless [the] debtor 28

13 Amended Joint Pre-trial Order, Doc. #98, at 6. 1 made [the] promise while not intending to pay or knowing that 2 payment would be impossible.” Kuan v. Lund (In re Lund), 202 3 B.R. 127, 131 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996), citing Citibank (S.D.) 4 N.A. v. Lee (In re Lee), 186 B.R. 695, 699 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 5 1995). “Intent to deceive can be inferred from surrounding 6 circumstances.” Cowen v. Kennedy (In re Kennedy), 108 F.3d 1015, 7 1018 (9th Cir. 1997). 8 The burden of proof is on VLG here to establish non- 9 dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), including justifiable 10 reliance. Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 66 (1995). “Because a 11 fundamental policy of the Bankruptcy Code is to afford debtors a 12 fresh start, ‘exceptions to discharge should be strictly 13 construed against an objecting creditor and in favor of the 14 debtor.’” Scheer v. State Bar (In re Scheer), 819 F.3d 1206, 15 1209 (9th Cir. 2016), quoting Snoke v. Riso (In re Riso), 978 16 F.2d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 1992); Equitable Bank v. Miller (In re 17 Miller), 39 F.3d 301, 304 (11th Cir. 1994). 18 The court has considered the direct testimony submitted by 19 declaration, the live testimony presented at trial, the 20 documentary evidence, and stipulated facts. The court is not 21 convinced that VLG has met its burden of proof as to at least 22 two of the elements of its claim: intentional misrepresentation 23 and justifiable reliance. Since the court is compelled to 24 strictly construe discharge exceptions, the burden of proof is 25 critical. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1. 2 “For purposes of § 523(a)(2) . . . the timing of the fraud 3 and elements to prove fraud focus on the time . . . of the 4 extension of credit to the Debtor . . . Congress’ use of 5 ‘obtained by’ in § 523(a)(2) ‘clearly indicates that fraudulent 6 conduct occurred at the inception of the debt, i.e. the debtor 7 committed a fraudulent act to induce the creditor to part with 8 his money or property.’” New Falls Corp. v. Boyajian (In re 9 Boyajian), 367 B.R. 138, 147 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) (internal 10 citation omitted), quoting Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Dobek (In 11 re Dobek), 278 B.R. 496, 508 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002), citing 12 McClellan v. Cantrell, 217 F. 3d 890, 896 (7th Cir. 2000) 13 (Ripple, Circuit Judge concurring). A § 523(a)(2)(A) claim 14 requires that the “target misrepresentation must have existed at 15 the inception of the debt, and the creditor must prove that he 16 or she relied on that misrepresentation.” Bethke v. Shane, 548 17 B.R. 291, 298 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2016), quoting Reingold v. 18 Shaffer (In re Reingold), Nos. CC-12-1112-PaDKi, CC-12-1141- 19 PaDKi, 2013 WL 113646 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. March 19, 2013). 20 “[T}he intention not to perform must be present when the 21 agreement is formed; otherwise only a breach of contract is 22 proven.” Yaikian v. Yaikian (In re Yaikian), 508 B.R. 175, 186 23 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2014). Intent to defraud is a factual 24 question. Kennedy, 108 F.3d at 1018. 25 VLG’s theory is that Anthony did not intend to pay when he 26 and Maria signed the LSA. VLG relies on Anthony’s numerous 27 bankruptcies, which pre-dated their relationship as evidence of 28 Anthony’s fraudulent intent. The court is unconvinced. 1 First, there is a six-year gap between Anthony’s last 2 discharge and the beginning of VLG’s services. Anthony and Maria 3 purchased the Los Banos residence during the interim period and 4 over a year before contracting with VLG.14 They were approved for 5 a modification before contacting VLG. This does not suggest an 6 intent to deceive. 7 Second, it is undisputed that Anthony was on disability and 8 he and Maria’s income had been severely impacted. One of the 9 Villas’ primary goals were to save their home. The loan 10 modification process would be a way to do that. This does not 11 suggest Anthony was planning to file bankruptcy and risk the 12 loss of the home to avoid paying VLG. 13 Third, throughout the modification process and document- 14 information gathering phase, Anthony cooperated in obtaining the 15 documents and responding to VLG’s requests. This militates 16 against a finding that Anthony intended to deceive VLG from the 17 outset. Anthony could have been slow in responding or 18 unavailable if he was planning to file bankruptcy anyway. The 19 Villas also paid three trial modification payments and one in 20 October of 2018. The Villas took steps to perform under the 21 contract; not avoid the contract. 22 Fourth, two significant events occurred in the fall of 2018 23 that changed Anthony’s situation. He was having to undergo 24 surgery and he and Maria were going through a divorce. Based on 25 the evidence, Anthony knew neither of these events when VLG 26 began performing services. No evidence was presented that when 27 28

14 Px 2, at 39. 1 the LSA was signed Anthony had no prospective ability to perform 2 the LSA notwithstanding his coexisting financial struggles. 3 VLG contends that Anthony was a demanding and difficult 4 client, which suggests an intention to not pay VLG. The court 5 disagrees. True enough, there were a few tense moments in the 6 first quarter of 2018 coinciding with the recording of the 7 notice of default and some gaps in communication. But even Mr. 8 Vokshori testified that it appeared that Anthony was then 9 wanting to “crack the whip” and be assured VLG was working 10 toward saving the residence. 11 It is also true that in the fall of 2018 and for months 12 thereafter, Anthony and Maria were not responding to 13 communications from VLG to collect the outstanding balance. But 14 that was after the marriage was dissolving, Anthony’s surgery, 15 and the change in Anthony’s living arrangements. Avoiding 16 creditors is not unusual for any debtor who is in financial 17 difficulty.15 18 Finally, Anthony’s bankruptcy filing in the Northern 19 District of California in March 2019 was dismissed before plan 20 confirmation. This does not suggest that Anthony intended to 21 avoid paying VLG over one year earlier. 22 The facts here are inconsistent with the theory that 23 Anthony never intended to pay VLG nor lacked an intent to 24 perform. But even if intent was proven—it was not—the facts are 25 also inconsistent with VLG’s justifiable reliance.

26 15 Anthony’s purchase of a car in the fall of 2018 was explained at trial. Anthony was having to occasionally live in his car and financed one to 27 accommodate his occasional need to rely on the vehicle for shelter. But the 28 f bi il fi un rg c ao tf i oa n c oh fa p tt he er s1 e3 c ui rm em de d ci la at ie ml .y S eth e er §e a 1f 3t 2e 5r ( aw )o u “l hd a nn go it n gr e ps au rl at g ri an p ha . ” So that does not suggest an initial intent to avoid paying VLG. 1 2. 2 A creditor’s reliance (upon the representation) need only 3 be justifiable, not reasonable. Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. at 74; 4 Citibank (S.D.) N.A. v. Eashai (In re Eashai), 87 F.3d 1082, 5 1090 (9th Cir. 1996). Justification “is a matter of the 6 qualities and characteristics of the particular plaintiff, and 7 the circumstances of the particular case, rather than of the 8 application of a community standard of conduct to all cases.” 9 Id., at 71 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 545A cmt. b 10 (1976)). This is a subjective standard in which the court 11 considers the knowledge and relationship of the parties. Sea 12 Win, Inc. v. Tran (In re Tran), 301 B.R. 576, 583 (Bankr. N.D. 13 Cal. 2003) (finding justifiable reliance when vendor checked 14 credit history but limited damages to initial credit limit), 15 citing Tallant v. Kaufman (In re Tallant), 218 B.R. 58, 67 16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998). 17 VLG is a law firm with considerable experience in loan 18 modifications and bankruptcies. Anthony and Maria came to them 19 for their expertise. There is no evidence VLG checked to 20 determine if any bankruptcies had been filed by Anthony, Maria, 21 or both before their relationship. From the beginning, Anthony 22 mentioned that a bankruptcy would eventually be needed because 23 of his substantial unsecured debt. The budget form that Anthony 24 submitted to VLG showed nearly a $500.00 negative balance.16 25 Anthony was on disability and not regularly employed.17 An 26 experienced bankruptcy and loan modification service firm is in 27 a far better position to determine whether to enter into an 28 16 Dx B-1.

17 Dx C-1. 1 agreement with a prospective client than most. The circumstances 2 of this case establish the lack of justifiable reliance. 3 VLG points to the terms of the LSA as establishing their 4 justifiable reliance. True enough, negligence in failing to 5 discover an intentional misrepresentation is no defense. In re 6 Eashai, 87 F.2d at 1090. But here, there is no intentional 7 misrepresentation. Anthony told VLG that bankruptcy was 8 potentially part of the entire process of reorganizing the 9 Villas’ debts. 10 VLG employees reviewed bankruptcy “options” with Anthony in 11 December 2017. After receiving correspondence concerning the 12 Villas’ default on their home loan Anthony told Nadia he was 13 thinking again about bankruptcy.18 In March 2018, Anthony 14 expressed dissatisfaction with the modification process and said 15 he had an appointment with a bankruptcy attorney within one 16 week.19 In late March, Nadia urged that Anthony and Maria wait on 17 filing bankruptcy, and at least give the modification “a try.” 18 All of this occurred before the approval of the loan 19 modification. VLG had opportunities to stop performing services. 20 They chose not to do that. VLG had the facts before them and 21 continued performing under the contract. Laudable that may be, 22 but it supports the conclusion that VLG did not justifiably rely 23 on the terms of the LSA in performing the continued services. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 18 Px 2, at 90.

19 Px 2, at 84. 1 CONCLUSION 2 VLG performed their services under the LSA. The result was 3 |}favorable to the Villas. Unfortunately, Anthony’s breach of his 4 |}contractual duty to pay for the services rendered by VLG does 5 except the debt owed VLG from discharge in his Chapter 7 6 ||proceeding. VLG did not meet the burden of proof on the issues 7 intentional misrepresentation or justifiable reliance. This 8 |Jis especially true given the court’s duty to narrowly construe 9 |ithe discharge exceptions. For the foregoing reasons, VLG shall 10 |}take nothing by way of its complaint. Should Anthony Villa seek 11 |J|costs and attorneys’ fees under § 523(d) or other provision of 12 it shall be by fully noticed motion filed and served as 13 |}provided in Civ. Rule 54, as applicable to bankruptcy 14 ||proceedings under Rule 7054. VLG may oppose the motion. The 15 }|}court will issue a separate judgment, which may be amended if 16 |J/either costs, attorneys’ fees, or both are awarded. ?° 17 18 19 Dated: Apr 07, 2022 By the Court 20 21 ond. 22 ené Lastreto II, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 ** The above shall be the courts findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ. Rule 52. Should any conclusion of law be deemed a finding of fact the court adopts it as such and vice versa.

1 Instructions to Clerk of Court 2 Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment 3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment 4 or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the Order via the 5 BNC or, if checked ___, via the U.S. mail. 6

7 Anthony William Villa 1839 Loma Linda Circle 8 Los Banos CA 93635 9 Nima S. Vokshori 10 1010 Wilshire Blvd #1404 Los Angeles CA 90017 11

12 Luke Jackson 1010 Wilshire Blvd #1404 13 Los Angeles CA 90017

14 Timothy C. Springer 15 4905 N West #102 Fresno CA 93705 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28