Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 46

Court of Appeal. Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal.

Sixth Appellate District


Daniel F. Potter. Clerk/Administrator Daniel P. Potter. Clerk/Administrator

Electronically RECEIVED on 11/8/2017 at 5.37.20 FM ElectronicaUy FILED on 11/8/2017 by M.Chang,Deputy Oerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIANA Q. DONG, Appellate Case


No. H041882
Appellant,
Super. Court Case
and No.608FL000101

OLIVIER GARBE,

Respondent.

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY


HON.MARYANN GRILLI,JUDGE

DIANA Q.DONG
1906 Worthington Cir.
Santa Clara CA 95050
(408)666-8116
Appellant DIANA Q. DONG,in pro. per.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Maniage of Appellate Case No. H041882

DIANA QIAO DONG, Superior Court


Case No.6-08
Appellant, FL 000101

and

OLIVIER GARBE,

Respondent.

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY


HON. MARYANN GRILLI,JUDGE

DIANA Q.DONG
1906 Worthington Cir.
Santa Clara CA 95050
(408)666-8116
Appellant DIANA Q. DONG,in pro. per.
TO BE FILED IN THE CX)URT OF APPEAL APP-008
COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER:
COURT OF APPEAL SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION ~
H041882
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO.:
SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:
NAME: DIANA Q. DONG
FIRM NAME: 608FL000101
STREET ADDRESS: 1906 Worthmgton Cir.
ciTY:Santa Clara state:ca ososo
CODE:TELPHO^E NO.: 4 08 666-8116 FAX NO.:
E-MAiLADDRESS:DianaDDong(ggmail.com
ATTr->nNPVPnR/namo- A 1 51 n1 in
APPELLANT: DIANA Q. DONG
PETITIONER:
RESPONDENT: OLIVIER G.
GARBE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST:

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS


(Check one): [x] INITIAL CERTIFICATE []SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE

Notice: Please read rules 8.208 and 8.488 before completing this form. You may use this form for the initial
certificate in an appeal when you file your brief or a prebriefing motion, application,or opposition to such a
motion or application in the Court of Appeal, and when you file a petition for an extraordinary writ. You may
also use this form as a supplementalcertificate when you learn of changed or additional information that must
be disclosed.

1. This form Is being submitted on behalf of the following party (name ):DIANA Q. DONG

2. a. [x] There are no Interested entities or persons that must be listed in this certificate under rule 8.208.
b. [ ] Interested entities or persons required to be listed under rule 8.208 are as follows:

Full name of interested Nature of interest


entity or person (Explain):

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

[] Continued on attachment 2.

The undersigned certifies that the above-listed persons or entitles (corporations,partnerships,firms, or any other
association,but not Including government entities or their agencies) have either (1) an ownership Interest of 10 percent or
more in the party if It Is an entity: or (2)a financial or other interest In the outcome of the proceeding that the justices
should consider In determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2).

Date: Nov. 8, 2017


DIANA O. DONG
(TYPEOR PRIMTNAME) (SIGNATURE OF APPELUNT OR ATTORNEY)

Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Optional Use CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS Cal Rules of Court, rules 8.208,8.488
>Jdici3l Council of California
Yfwwcourtsca.gov
APP-OOa [Rev.January 1,2017)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pagefs)

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES


OR PERSONS 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4-5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 6

APPEALABILITY 7

INTRODUCTION 8

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT FACTS 10

STANDARD OF REVIEW 12

DISCUSSION 12

1. IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR TO MAKE A


$100,000 SANCTIONS ORDER AGAINST
APPELLANT WITH ZERO PROOF THAT HER
ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR CAUSED ANY
SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS 12

A. There was no evidence connecting appellant's


alleged misbehaviors to fees or costs 12

B. The very round number chosen for sanctions suggests


it was pulled out ofthin air 21

C. Appellant adequately objected to the adequacy ofthe


evidence regarding 271 sanctions 24

D. Appellant adequately objected to the adequacy ofthe


evidence regarding 271 sanctions 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS rcontinued)

Pafie(s)

11. IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR THE COURT


TO SEND AWAY APPELLANT'S LIMITED-
SCOPE ATTORNEY,WHO HAD DRAFTED HER
RESPONSE TO THE 271 RFO,AND THEN TO
HEAR THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE 271 RFO
WITH APPELLANT HAVING NO COUNSEL
PRESENT 26

A. Attorney Quintero represented appellant regarding


the 271 RFO,but he was told attorney's fees were
not being heard June 13^ and was sent away by the
judge 26

B. In the present case the trial court violated appellant's


right to due process oflaw,including the ri^t to
counsel of her own choosing 27

m. APPELLANT RECEIVED INADEQUATE


NOTICE OF THE HEARING 28

CONCLUSION 31

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT 32

PARTIAL COPY OF EX.C 33

PROOFS OF SERVICE BY MAIL 44


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Paee(s)
Constitutions

U.S. Constitution, 14^ Amendment 26

California Constitution, Art. I, 7(a) 26

Statutes

Family Code

271 9,10,12,
18,20,21,23,24,25,26,29

3557 9,21,23

Cases

Alan S. V. Superior Court(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238,


91Cal.Rptr.3d241 27

County V. Moore(1995)22 Cal.App.4th 1422,1426,


40 Cal.Rptr. 2d 18 25

In re Marriage of Feldman(2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1470,


64 Cal.Rptr. 3d 29 12

Long V. Long(1967)251 Cal.App.2d 732,


59 Cal.Rptr. 790 26

Sagonowsky v. Kekoa(2016)6 Cal. App. 5th 1142,


212Cal.Rptr. 3d 94 12,23,24

URS Corp. V. AtkinsonAValsh Joint Venture(2017)


15 Cal. App. 5th 872 27
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Marriage of

DIANA QIAO DONG,

Appellant,

and

OLIVIER GARBE,

Respondent.
)

Appealabilitv

Appellant Diana Qiao Dong (hereinafter "Diana" or "appellant")is

petitioner in an action for dissolution of marriage wherein a Judgment of

Dissolution' was filed on 9/20/2010,in the California Superior Court, Santa

Clara County,In re Marriage ofDong and Garbe, No.6-08 FL 000101.

After a post-judgment hearing, an order for $100,000 in sanctions was filed

on June 23,2014,^ and appellant appeals form that order. An order


granting sanctions is an appealable order.In re Marriage ofBurgard(1999)

72 Cal.App.4th 74,84 Cal.Rptr.2d 739.

'Clerk's Transcript(CT)31-44.
^ CT 738-750.
INTRODUCTION

On March 27,2014,on behalf of respondent Olivier Garbe

(hereinafter "Olivier" or "respondent"), attorney Bradford Baugh filed an

RFO requesting child support modification and sanctions against Diana

under Fam. Code sections 271 and 3557,set for hearing July 15,2014.^ The
RFO contained a long laundry list of appellant's supposed sanctionable

conduct,running fi-om 2010 through 2014/ The RFO did not connect
appellant's alleged conduct to anv specific amount ofsanctions, nor did the

evidence. Yet the trial court awarded respondent $100.000 in sanctions with

no evidence that anv amount of fees/costs was due to anv specific behavior

whatsoever. At trial respondent entered into evidence his Ex. C which

consisted ofsuch totallv redacted copies of his attorney's billing statements

that Ex. C provides no basis for a sanction of$100.000. Although

respondent's counsel said he might submit unredacted bills, appellant has

no indication that occurred. Ifimredacted bills were delivered to the trial

judge with no copy to appellant, that would deprive her of due process of

law; no findings were made tojustify using secret evidence against her. San

Jose is not Guantanamo.

Nor was there any other evidence to connect specific conduct to any

specific amount offees and costs. The $100.000 sanction amount was

^ CT 140 et seq.
^CT 152-153.
pulled out ofthin air with no supporting evidence.

Note: Wherever Fam. Code sec. 271 is referred to in this AOB,it

includes 3557 as the court did not make separate awards, and both are

contested on this appeal.

Further, appellant was given no adequate notice of hearing as the

hearing was switched from July 15,2014 per the RFO^ to June 13,2014 by
means of a stipulation signed not by appellant but by a limited-scope

lawyer who had no authority to enter such stipulation, and which was not

served on her.^ She had come to court June 12 for a visitation review, but

that was changed to June 13 by an unserved minute order^ and the


A

Stipulation of which there is no indication she was aware. At the June 13,

2014 hearing, the court excused appellant's attorney, as only

custody/visitation were being addressed, as far as appellant knew.

Appellant has Alexandra Galvez, visitation supervisor, as a witness

to what happened during visits.^ Diana and Olivier testified about visitation
issues, and the attorneys argued. The judge stated:

THE COURT: Here's what I want you to do, at the


break I want you to briefly talk with Mr. Baugh about what
it is you're asking the Court to do and then when we come

'CT 140.
'CT 269-270.
'CT719.
'CT 929-930.
'RT 36-54.
RT 54-89.
back after lunch we can talk further about it."

An order of$100,000 in sanctions was entered against appellant At

the June 13 hearing, the issue of appellant's visitation fct began to be

heard, and then the hearing swung to vocational evaluator Timothy Harper

on the subject ofappellant's ability to earn. There was testimony on the

issue offinances. Thejudge issued Findings and Order After Hearing,filed

on June 23,2014,and this appeal is fi-om that order.

March 3,2014,attorney Salomon Quintero had filed a notice of

limited scope on behalf of appellant, making him her attorney on "Attomey

fee issue set for trial June 13,2014, and NO OTHER ISSUES OF ANY
10
KIND." One can argue that the only fees as to which he represented

appellant pertained to his Borson motion, but that is not what the notice of

limited scope says.

Additionally, on May 27,2014, appellant's limited-scope attomey

filed a Responsive Declaration to the Mar. 27,2014 RFO,and he

specifically objected to the 271 sanctions request,'^ which supports the


contention that he represented appellant regarding the 271 sanctions issue.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT FACTS

In addition to respondent's March 27,2014 RFO,also pending was a

review of visitation, set for hearing June 12,2014; with no notice that

"RT89.
"CT 138.
"CT 444-445.
10
hearing was moved to June 13,2014, and the only record ofthat occurring

is a minute order from June 12, with no indication anyone was present in

court or that it was served on anyone(CT 719). In fact, appellant came to

court June 12 and was told to return June 13 for the visitation review; as

there is no documentation ofthat, it is not in the record. Apology is made

for citing facts outside ofthe record, but there is no record to cite.

Appellant had an attorney under notice oflimited scope^"* regarding


attorney fees. That attorney appeared on June 13,2014,and was told that

the issue of attorney fees was off calendar:

THE COURT: All right. Counsel,regarding the


attomey's fee matter, that matter is offcalendar today.

And:

THE COURT: Your client filed a motion


which is on calendar today at her express request.
MR.QUINTERO: Okay,I have nothing to do with
that.^^

New dates for attorney Quintero's Borson motion were discussed, it

was set, and he left; the minute order states:

Court convenes with all above present. Salomon Quintero represents


he is only here on attorney fees only for his limited scope
representation. Court advised Mr. Quintero the motion is off
calendar. He must refile his motion and properly serve his motion...

Mr. Quintero is excused.'^

"CT 137-138.
RT 16.
RT 17.
CT 722.

11
Later at this June 13^ hearing, an attorney fee award of$100,000 was made
against appellant.

The issue of visitation was first reviewed,then child support and

there was some argument regarding respondent's request for fees and costs,

and the matter was taken under submission.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard ofreview is abuse of discretion, as recently set forth in

Sagonowsky v. Kekoa(2016^ 6 Cal. App. 5th 1142,212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 94:

"The imposition of sanctions under section 271 \s committed to the


sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court's order will be
upheld on appeal unless the reviewing court, 'considering all of the
evidence viewed most favorably in its support and indulging all
reasonable inferences in its favor, no judge could reasonably make
the order.' [Citation.]"(Jbid.)"To the extent that we are called upon
to interpret the statutes relied on by the trial court to impose
sanctions, we apply a de novo standard ofreview.[Citation.]" {In re
Marriage ofFeldman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1479 [64 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 29].)

DISCUSSION

I. IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR TO MAKE A $100.000


SANCTIONS ORDER AGAINST APPELLANT WITH
ZERO PROOF THAT HER ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR
CAUSED ANY SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FEES OR COSTS.

A. There was no evidence connecting appellant's alleged


misbehaviors to fees or costs.

Virtually all ofthe reporter's transcript is irrelevant to this appeal.

This summary is offered only to show what went on at the hearing, not to

contend it is relevant. Indeed, appellant contends it is lacking in relevant

12
evidence on the relationship ofthe 271 sanctions to any specific behavior.

Pages 12-24 ofthe RT include excusing attorney Quintero who

departed from the hearing and issues of proper services(discussed below).

19-21 appellant objected that she hadn't been served.

Page 24: Mr.Baugh admits the respondent's income information

was not timely served but was a day late in spite ofa court order. The order

was handwritten by thejudge on an RFO filed Apr.28,2014,' regarding


payment ofsupervised visitation fees, but the order was not limited to that

issue. It should be noted that in the order filed June 23 2014,the court made

a decision on the costs of supervised visitation.'^


Page 25^the court proceeds anyway over appellant's objection, as

stated on Page 26:

THE PETITIONER: Your Honor, may I say something?


I really receive whatever the was the tax retum for
2012 or 2013 with expenses report fi-om Mr. Garbe, it's on
June 6th.
THE COURT:Ma'am -ma'am
THE PETITIONER:Just one week ago I receive this one.
THE COURT:I imderstand that issue
motion will go forward.

Page 25^Judge Grilli lists the matters on calendar that day, and did

not include a visitation review.

Page 27^Appellant has the visitation supervisor at court, ready to

testify, but the judge seems unaware that visitation review was on calendar

"CT271.
"CT 738-739.
13
and asks why the supervisor is present.

Page 28^When it became apparent visitation would be discussed,

Mr.Baugh reminds the court that the children's attorney, Heather Allen,

was to be present by phone,and her telephonic presence was obtained.

Page 30-86 ^The visitation supervisor testified, father testified, and

they argued about supervision^all of which is irrelevant to this appeal. The

judge elicited appellant's request in that regard:

THE COURT: So,am I correct that you're asking


that the visitation change fi'om supervised to
unsupervised, is that what you're trying to do?
THE PETITIONER: Right.^
Page 87^After a break, vocational evaluator Timothy Harper

arrived to testify about appellant's ability to eam. While appellant disagrees

with the court's imputing $150k per year income to her, she is not

challenging that on this appeal.

Page 87^Appellant returned to the issue ofsupervised visitation.

Respondent's counsel asked to present witness Timothy Harper "out of

order."

Page 89^Respondent's counsel argued about the res judicata effect

ofan earlier ruling on pass through income which he raised by means ofa

motion in limine.^^ Respondent's counsel referred^^ to an earlier statement

20rt27.
^^CT 477-509.
^^RT90.
14
ofdecision, filed on April 29,2013.^^ The Statement of Decision contained
'yA
two references to something about pass through income or expenses.

Perhaps something more could be inferred from the attachments, but this is

not an issue on appeal. It is mentioned only so that the Court will know that

appellant summarized the respondent's evidence at trial.

On page 92 the hearing returned to the witness Mr. Haiper. As

appellant is not challenging income or expense determinations on appeal,

his testimony is not relevant to the appeal. He testified about appellant'sjob

search through page 159, when he was excused.

Page 159: respondent's counsel called appellant to testify under 776.

Page 159-160 appellant attempted to submit a letter fi*om her

daughter on the visitation review issue.

Page 160, thejudge asked:"Okay, ma'am, how is that document

relevant to today?"

Appellant reminded thejudge that supervision of visitation was being

reviewed.(Indeed,the witness Harper had been called "out oforder," and it

made sense to return to the visitation review.)

Page 161 thejudge sua sponte raised the issue ofhearsay regarding

^ That Statement ofDecision is at CT 478-499 plus attachments. It is


regarding a post-judgment motion to modify spousal support, which had
been filed by appellant, and that Statement ofDecision is part of
respondent's motion in limine regarding res judicata and pass through
income.
CT 538:17,563:3.
15
the letter, and respondent's attorney proceeded with his case. It seemed that

the visitation review was interrupted by the arrival ofthe witness, Timothy

Harper, but instead ofreturning to the issue of visitation review, Mr. Baugh

was permitted to proceed with the issue he wanted to address.

Page 161: appellant tried to return to her daughter's letter, but the

judge said it was hearsay, and further:"So,let's move on with what we're

doing today." Ofcourse, visitation review was supposed to be on calendar

that day, but it was Mr. Baugh's agenda which took precedence.

Page 163-166: respondent's attorney questions appellant about her

having purchased a house, 1906 Worthington Circle is where appellant now

resides. The home purchase was addressed to page 169.

Page 169: appellant was asked about an alleged $400,000

inheritance from her father.

Pages 170-188: The home purchase and various related funding

issues were addressed as well as appellant owning property in Shanghai and

alleged failures to disclose information.

Pages 188-189: Respondent's counsel questioned appellant about

trips to China.

Page 191: the iudee told appellant she could testify about the support

mattersnot mentioning the sanction issue.

Page 191-206: Appellant offers her 2012 and 2013 income tax

returns. She is questioned about loans, retirement withdrawals and funds

16
that might be on hand and her claim that she couldn't afford to pay for

supervised visitation.

Page 206-207: The judge asks appellant whether for more than a

year she had not paid any child support, appellant responded that her

daughter lived with her, and she has no money to pay.

Pages 208-209: Petitioner offered four 2013 bank statements and a

check while respondent's attorney pointed out: "statement of3-12-14

shows $344,599,59 in the bank while no child support is being paid."

Pages 209-210: The statements were in the name of appellant's

father, Yun Shang Dong.

Page 210: Appellant admits the account is now in her name because

her father died.

Pages 211-213: There is confusing testimony about Chinese

investors loaning money.

Page 214: The court stated:"Everybody agrees that you borrowed

200,000 from Ms. Wen."

Pages 214-215: Appellant testifies that her long-time fiiends from

school knew she had no place to stay, and they helped her out.

Beginning on page 223 respondent's attorney made an offer of proof

as to what respondent's testimony would be.

Page 223: His claimed net monthly income was $16,232.

17
Page 223-224: Mr. Garbe would testify that he has provided the

redacted bills and is willing to give his unredacted bills to the Court in

camera to check the fees. Thev are identical to what is Exhibit C but

unredacted. The Court I believe from prior experience likes to see

unredacted bills.

THE COURT:Correct.

Exhibit C was a virtually completely redacted set of pages on which

no attorney fee award could be based.(The first ten pages ofEx. C are

attached to this AGS. Although there are many pages to this exhibit, it

conveys virtually no information as to what should be the amount of

sanctions.) Nor does the record reflect that unredacted bills were ever

submitted, and it is believed that they, in fact were not submitted. That

being the case, the $100.000 271 sanction award must be reversed.

Page 224: Respondent's counsel indicates "back support owed to ~

through 3-31-14 ...

$9,816.74 not including interest."

Page 224-231: Attorney Baugh offers information necessary for the

court to address respondent's request to modify child support.

Pages 231-232 include respondent's 2012 and 2013 income tax

returns.

236-247 Appellant cross-examines respondent on financial issues.

18
When she attempted to establish his 2012 income,she asked about his 2012

1040 tax form;

"The income under item 22 mentioned 712,289." Attorney Baugh

responded:"Pd ask for a ruling on my motion in limine. Your Honor."^^

Thejudge said she was going to deny it in part.

Page 240 respondent testifies: "1 agree that line 22, which is talking

about this, is your total income is 712,289."[Note: it was respondent's

income being referred to.]

Page 241:"THE RESPONDENT: So.in 2013 this is vour fmeaning

respondent's! total income savs $1-117 million."

Page 242: Appellant asks ifthe money wasn't used in the

corporation, and respondent's attorney objects:

MR.BAUGH:On the grounds that threejudges have


already seen the evidence and made three separate rulings that it's
not real income.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. If you've got a different
question ask.

This appears to be thejudge granting the motion in limine, but it is other

than clear.

Page 243: appellant begins questions about other expenses,such as

why the 12- and 16-year old children need daycare.

Page 244: Respondent admits there was currently no nanny or

daycare.

"RT238.
19
Page 246: He denies having an apartment in Paris.

Page 248: Appellant asks about his rental expense.

Pages 249-250: Appellant attempts to ask questions about the

children, and the judge interrupts her, stating:"Ma'am,let's focus on what

we're here for." Visitation review regarding the need,if any,for continued

supervision, was on calendar, but thejudge appeared to be unaware ofthis

issue, to which appellant repeatedly attempted to return.

Page 251: Appellant struggles along, trying to get information about

the children's situation.

Page 253: THE COURT:Again, we're not going to relitigate the

custody issue today any more than we already have.

Pages 253-254: Appellant asks about dates when the children were

with her, which would be relevant to whether visitation supervision should

be kept in place, but thejudge appears to think appellant is talking about

the percent oftime regarding child support calculations.

Page 256: The court gives appellant a 3-minute warning that the

hearing will end.

Page 257: Appellant returns to the question of whether she'd given

the daughter a note during a supervised visitthe issue that appellant

wanted to discuss, and which indeed was on calendar.

Page 260: THE COURT:And let me,just so I'm clear, you're asking

for sanctions under 271?" And they confirm 3557 as well.

20
Pages 261:264 Attorney Baugh argues the 271 sanctions issue

never connecting any particular amount offees or costs with problems with

appellant.

Page 264: Appellant objected to the lack of proofregarding

sanctions:

THE PETITIONER: Objection.


THE COURT:On what grounds?
THE PETITIONER: Because everything what he said
was not that happened. He doesn't have evidence
THE COURT: Okay.
THE PETITIONER: doesn't have proof.
THE COURT:The objection is overruled. This is
argument.

Page 271:"court's done."

B. The very round number chosen for sanctions suggests it was


pulled out of thin air.

The State Bar Association on its website lets people know how to

detect bill padding, but the comments are relevant here where it was

sanctions padding. The Bar points out that round numbers are probably

"estimates":

3. Time estimates. If the bills show hours in even numbers such as


8.0,9.0, or 10.0, these are probably estimates rather than actual time
spent and should be investigated.^
In the present case it was not hoxus but instead dollars that appeared only in

the very round number of $100,000. In fact, in the present case there wasn't

http://www.calbar.ca.gOv/portals/0/documents/mfa/2014/2003-
0l_Detecting-Atty-Bill-Paddingr.pdf

21
mere rounding; there was simply picking a number based on no evidence.

There was no attempt to make any actual calculations.

6. Lack of detail. "Research issues","attention to file","discovery",


"prepare for trial", and similar statements are not specific enough to
let the reader know what was done.^^

In the present case there wasn't even any detail as to any connection

between failure to cooperate for settlement and any amount of sanctions.

Thejudge in her Findings and Order indicated in part:

There are 26 volumes ofthe court file. Mother has filed 21 separate
motions since October 1,2010, which are listed in the attachment to
Father's Request for Orders relating to attorney's fees filed March
27,2014. In addition, she filed for bankruptcy, which was later
dismissed.^^

And:

The Court finds that a significant portion ofthe fees and costs
incurre4 in this matter were not reasonably necessary. Petitioner
(Mother) has, as was previously found earlier in this matter,
prolonged this matter and unnecessarily complicated the litigation.
She has failed to follow the requirements ofthe Employment Efforts
Order, failed to pay any child support in accordance with the support
orders, failed to pay child support add ons as required by order, and
failed to pay her court ordered share ofthe non-covered health care
costs for her children. In addition, she has embroiled the children in
the custody dispute, which required an emergency screening
resulting in supervised visitation for Mother. She has also violated
the rules for supervised visitation. Further,she set up a
secret account for the minor child to encourage and dictate her role
in the custody action.
The actions ofthe Mother have resulted in substantial fees and costs
that were often not
necessary. In addition; she failed to disclose the purchase ofa new
residence for over a million dollars in cash. Her Income and Expense

27
Id.
^ Ct 744.
22
Declaration failed to mention the home or its value, as well as any
costs for taxes and other payments. She claimed poverty while
having at least $400,000 in cash &om her father. While she claimed
that this was only to be used to purchase a home,it is clear that she
did not put all ofit into the home. Her testimony concerning the
house purchase and her assets changed several times during the
hearing.
In addition, Mother's testimony concerning available cash and
resources for her living expenses was simply not credible. It is clear
that she is paying her living expenses and was able to raise in excess
ofa million dollars to buy a house, while, at the same time, choosing
not to pay for the support ofher children pursuant to court orders.
Father was required to seek court assistance to attempt to recover
child support from Mother.
Based upon all ofthe above and the files and evidence in this
matter, pursuant to Family Code 271 and 3557,Petitioner
(Mother)shall pay to Respondent father), as and for fees and
sanctions, the sum of$100,000.^^

For purposes of this appeal, appellant must accept that the trial court found

she behaved in the manner stated above. In addition to that, Diana was in

2015 declared to be a "vexatious litigant."(This finding is not part ofthe

present record, but doubtless respondent will bring it up, and appellant is

not concealing it.) But none ofthat means that sanctions can be awarded

against her without evidence ofthe amount of attomey fees(Fam. Code

sec. 271)and costs(Fam. Code sec. 3557).

The factual record in the present case is very similar to that in

Sagonowsky, supra,in that a roimd-numbered puiported 271 sanctions

order is madebut without evidence tojustify those numbers.

CT 744-745.

23
In Sagonowsky the party requesting sanctions did make some

(inadequate) attempt to connect the requests to amounts offees. Kekoa said

he:"incurred $42,781.23 in attorney fees and costs to expunge the lis

pendens,to appoint the clerk as agent to execute the deeds for the Ashbury

and Filbert properties, and to file the rents motion and section 271 motion.

Kekoa also stated he lost $180,000 when Sagonowsky interfered with the

sale ofthe Ashbury property(6 Cal. App. 5th 1142 at 1148,212 Cal. Rptr.

3d at 98-99)and lost $180,000 ofthe value ofthe home due to wife's

delaying the sale ofthe home(6 Cal. App. 5th at 1147). In addition, the

trial court ordered $500,000 in sanctions to pimish the wife for her

"relentless and culpable conduct... ."(6 Cal. App. 5th at 1154,212 Cal.

Rptr. 3d at 19.)

Importantly, the court in Sagonowsky held:

Here,there is no relationship between the sanctions of$500,000 and


$180,000, and Kekoa's attorney fees.(6 Cal. App. 5th at 1155,212
Cal. Rptr. 3d at 22.)

And:

the amount the court awarded was excessive because $680,000 was
untethered to attorney fees and costs incurred by Kekoa.(6 Cal.
App. 5th at 1153,212 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 18.)

Clearly, a hearing at which 271 sanctions are awarded must include

evidence that shows a relationsliip between 271 attorney-fee sanctions,

that is, must show that any award is "tethered" to the amoimt offees and

costs. Arguably, having pleadings that make the connection between the

24
fees and the behavior could be sufficient"-but here no pleadings puiport to

make that connection. The $100,000 fLgure wasjust floating out there, not

tethered to anything.

C. Appellant adequately objected to the adequacy ofthe evidence


regarding 271 sanctions.

First, appellant filed a Responsive Declaration,^ which


opposed the request for attorney's fees, and which stated in part:"There is

nothing in Garbe's catalogue of motions that would give rise to 271

sanctions." The gist ofthe 271 RFO filed by respondent was a list of

motions, OSC's, etc. set forth by respondent at CT 152-153. Appellant

specifically rejected that entire list as something that could justify 271

sanctions.

Second,appellant went to hearing on the Mar.27 RFO filed by

respondent. That is how one objects to the sufficiency of evidence

regarding an RFOgo to hearing. Thejudge did not announce her decision

at the hearing but by a Findings and Order After Hearing,filed Jime 23,

2014."

D. Entering an order without anv evidence to support it is a denial of


due process oflaw.

In County v. Moore(1995)22 Cal.App.4th 1422,1426, 40 Gal.

Rptr. 2d 18, Justice King pointed out that where the only information on

'CT444etseq.
"CT744,etseq.
25
which the trial court could have based its judgment was the unsworn

statements ofthe District Attorney in his opening remarks, and attorneys'

statements do not constitute evidence as defined by Evidence Code section

140, thejudgment cannot be upheld. Further it did not matter that there was

no objection on the lower court level because there was no evidence to

object to. In a situation similar to the present case. Justice King pointed out:

County offered no evidence,testimonial or otherwise, to prove the


disputed allegations ofthe complaint: separation, ability to pay,and
receipt of public assistance. No evidence was introduced to support
the income and expense figures fed into the computer. There was no
evidence ofthe amoimt ofthe alleged AFDC payments. No evidence
at all.

And:"County offered no evidence for him to object to." Attomey Baugh's

bills were completely whited out except for the initials ofthe person

performing the services, the date,the hours and the feebut NO

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES. There was nothing that could amount to

substantial evidence to support the $100,000 271 sanction amount.

IV. IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR THE COURT TO


SEND AWAY APPELLANT'S LIMITED-SCOPE
ATTORNEY,WHO HAD DRAFTED HER RESPONSE
TO THE 271 RFO.AND THEN TO HEAR THE ISSUES
RAISED IN THE 271 RFO WITH APPELLANT
HAVING NO COUNSEL PRESENT.

A. Attomev Ouintero represented appellant regarding the 271


RFO. but he was told attomev's fees were not being heard
June 13**^ and was sent awav bv the iudee.

26
March 3,2014, attorney Salomon Quintero had filed a notice of

limited scope on behalfof appellant, making Mr. Quintero appellant's

attomey on "Attomey fee issue set for trial June 13,2014,and NO OTHER

ISSUES OF ANY KIND."^^ One could argue that the only fees as to which
he represented appellant pertained to his Borson motion, but that is not

what the notice oflimited scope says.

and he specificallv objected to the 271 sanctions request.^^ He


represented appellant regarding the 271 sanctions issue, and it was error to

send him away and then hear the issue of271 sanctions.

B. In the present case the trial court violated appellant's right to


due process oflaw,including the right to counsel of her own
choosing.

It has long been the law in California that family law litigants are

entitled to due process oflaw, which includes the right to retained counsel

ofone's own choosing. In.Long v. Long(1967)251 Cal.App.2d 732,59

Cal.Rptr. 790,a parent appealed from an order denying modification ofthe

child custody provisions ofa divorce decree.

An appellate court in URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture

(2017) 15 Gal. App. 5th 872,886 pointed out:

The baseline assumption in everv civil action is that parties


are free to choose an attorney to represent them

It fruther referred to a "party's right to counsel of choice."(Id.) This is part

CT 138.
"CT 444-445.
27
ofa civil litigant's due process rights. U.S. Constitution, 14 Amendment,
California Constitution, Art. I, 7(a).

In the present case appellant's limited-scope coimsel was present at

the beginning ofthe hearing held on June 13,2014,but the trial court

excused him.

THE COURT:All ri^t. Counsel,regarding die


attomeys fee matter, that matter is offcalendar today.^
And:

THE COURT: Your client filed a motion


which is on calendar today at her express request
MR.QUINTERO: Okay,I have nothing to do with
that.^^

However,contrary to the representation to Mr. Quintero,the trial court proceeded

to hear the RFO filed on Mar. 27,2017,by attomey Baugh on behalfof

respondent. This was prejudicial error.

As stated in Alan S. v. Superior Court(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238,

242,91 Cal.Rptr.3d 241 while Olivier had competent, aggressive counsel,

Diana was "Hke the pro per in Elkins,[left] to haplessly flail away." But for

Diana English was a (barely mastered)second language, as can readily be

seen by reading her attempts to self-represent herein.

III. APPELLANT RECEIVED INADEOUATE NOTICE OF


THE HEARING.

RT 16.
"RT 17.
28
The RFO filed on behalf ofrespondent on Mar.27,2017,indicated

July 15,2014 as the hearing date.^^ The attorney for respondent had a proof
ofservice for that date, but it was sent to appellant at a former address.^^
She had not filed a notice ofchange of address, so technically this

amounted to service on appellant.

On April 15,2014,a stipulation was filed, which changed the July

15 hearing date to June 13.^^ However,that stipulation was not signed by


appellant, and there is no indication it was served on her. And Mr.

Quintero's notice oflimited scope didn't empower him to continue the

hearing without letting the client know.^^ While an attorney is empowered


to enter into procedural agreements on behalf of a client, this authority

becomes unclear when the attorney is operating under a notice of limited

scope. While old cases often held that if a party's lawyer knew,it's

presumed he informed the client. But those old cases were decided before

notice oflimited scope existed. It can't be presumed that a limited scope

attorney informed his client ofsomething outside the limited scope.

The only way Diana found that the hearing had been moved to June

13^ was by coming to court for her hearing on June 12^.(As stated above,
this is not reflected in the record, and apologies are made, but no record

CT 140.
"CT 170; RT22-23.
^RT 269-270.
CT 137-138.

29
was created.) The court's June 13 minute order gives no reason or

procedural explanation for why the hearing^ was moved from June 12^ to
June 13^.It appears that the court clerk, like Diana,didn't know that
hearing ofDiana's RFO had been moved from the 12^ to the 13."*^
Appellant managed to object:"I have not been served on time."^^ In
response to that objection, attomey Baugh pointed out the Proofof Service

by mail filed on April 1,2014.^^ The RFO served on appellant, as


evidenced by the Proofof Service filed April 1,showed a hearing date of

July 15*^the original date, which by April 1,2014 had not been moved
according to anyone's thinking. There was no proof ofservice on Diana of

a writing showing the June 13^ hearing date. She continued to object:
THE PETITIONER: The and also I never been served
THE COURT: Well, understand, ma'am--
THE PETITIONER: I didn't aware anything about
THE COURT: Ma'am, your objection is noted and
overruled.^

Her objection that there was no valid proof ofservice on her was

valid.

Attomey for respondent served a notice ofentry and a copy ofthe

April 14 stipulation only on attomey Quintero.^^

'^CT719.
RT 19.
^'RT19.
'*^RT20,CT1070.
^RT233.
928-930.

30
CONCLUSION

The court's order against appellant for 271 sanctions in the amount

of$100,000 must be reversed. Ex. C,a group of virtually blank billing

statements, cannot amount to substantial evidence to support the sanctions

order.

Dated: November 8,2017

DIANA Q. DONG,Appellant in pro. per.

31
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I, the undersigned, state:

I am appellant herein.

I hereby certify that the number of words in Appellant's Opening

Brief,including footnotes,is approximately 7,189. I have relied on the

computerized count of Microsoft Word 2010 in making this calculation.

Executed at Campbell, California, on Nov.8,2017

I declare under penalty ofpeijury under the Laws ofthe State of

California that the foregoing is true and correct.

DIANA Q.DONG,Appellant in pro. per.

32
STATEMENT^IFFICE COPY

BRADFORD BAUGH OCT31.2P10


bOK, BAUGH. TARVIN & AMINI
AN'ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS
.1550 THE-ALAMEDA. SUITE 155 I NOIATERIHAN *3
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126-2304 i NOV 21,

LAST CHARGES BILLED ON: 10/10


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 07/10
OLIVIER GARBE
100 N..WHISMAN RD.,#3521
MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94043
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE # 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00-R 7436)


.Mm
FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00-R 7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS FEES


1 BB 10/04/10 I .20 75.0'
2 BB 10/04/10 I ,15 56:2
3 BB 10/04/10 i .10 37.5
4 BB 10/05/10 i .55 206.2
5 BB 10/06/10 .05 .18.7
6 BB 10/06/10 .10 37.5
7 MG 10/06/10 .35 52.5

1 BB 10/07/10 1.50 562.5


9 BB 10/07/10 .05 - 18.7
10 BB 10/07/10 .20 75.C
11 BB 10/07/10 1.85 - 693.7
12 BB 10/08/10 1.35 506.2
.13 BB 10/08/10 2.50 937.5
14 BB 10/08/10 .65 243.:
15 BB 10/09/10 .25 93.:
16 MG lO/lVlO .25 37.f
17 BB 10/14/10 1.90 712.*
18 BB 10/14/10 .10 37.J
19 BB 10/14/10 .20 75.1
20 BB 10/15/10 .10 37.!
21 BB 10/17/10 .05 18.:
22 BB 10/18/10 .25 93.:
23 BB 10/18/10 .75 281.;
24 BB 10/18/10 .05 18.'
25 BB 10/19/10 .30 112.!
26 BB 10/19/10 .35' 131.:
27 BB 10/20/10 .15 56.:
28 BB 10/20/10 .05 18.
29 BB 10/22/10 1.45 543.
30 BB 10/22/10 1.25 468.
31 BB 10/27/10 .25 93.
32 88 10/28/10 .45 168.
33 BB 10/28/10 1.50 562.
34 BB 10/29/10 .15 56.
35 BB 10/29/10 .45 168.
)BB 11/01/10 .65 243.
^7 BB 11/01/10. .05 18.
38 BB 11/01/10 - 56.
-
EXHIBIT C 37.
39-MG- 11/01/101 -25^v
20^^ - I^S65r
7436-00 -35&7

SUMMARY OF HOURS, RATES & FEES


BB HOURS 20.10 ..e 75.00 PER HOUR $7,537.50
MG HOURS 0.85 0'-$15O.OO PER HOUR $127.50
m TOTAL HOURS 20.95 NET TOTAL FEES: $7.665.00

COSTS ADVANCED SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT:


'40 10/06/10 COURIER SERVICES.
41 10/06/10 COSTS-
42 10/28/10 CLERK'S FEES.
43 10/29/10 CLERK'S FEES.
44 10/31/10 CURRENT PHOTOCOPY CHARGES.
CURRENT COSTS:

/ADJUSTMENTS TO PRIOR MONTH ENDING BALANCE: $1,234.11'


BALANCE FROM THE LAST STATEMENT
PLUS: CHARGES LISTED /ABOVE
PLUS: LATE PAYMENT CHARGE COMPUTED AT 12% /ANNUAL
TOT/AL /AMOUNT DUE AND PAY/ABLE, PLEASE PAY
BRADFORD BAUGH "NOy 30.2010
DDK, BAUGH, TARVIN & AMlNt
AN ASSOciATION OF ATTORNEYS PAV $173:4/4 9^-^
1550 THE ALAMEDA, SUITE 155 \'} i77I I 'i'N
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95U&'2304 ' DEC 21, 2019

LAST CHARGES BIOED ON: 11/10


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 07/10
OUVIERGARBE
{) -
100 N- WHISMAN RD.,#3521
MOUrfTAIN VIEW, CA 94043.
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE#. 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00 -R 7436)

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLimON (00-R .7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS FEES


1 SB 10/13/10 .25 93.7i
2 BB 11/02/10 .65 243.71
3 BB 11/03/10 .15 56.2!
4 BB 11/03/10 .10 37.5'
5 BB 11/03/10. .05 18.7
6 BB 11/03/10 .05 18.7
7 BB 11/04/10 .05 18.7
8 BB 11/05/10 .15 56.2
7 BB 11/05/10 .15 56.2
xO BB 11/05/10 .05 18.7
11 BB 11/06/10 .20 75.C
12 BB 11/08/10 1.35 506.2
13 MG 11/08/10 .35 52.f
14 MG 11/08/10 .75 112.5
15 BB 11/09/10 .20 75.(
16 BB 11/09/10 1.25 468.:
17 BB 11/09710 .45 168.:
IB BB 11/10/10 1.15 431.:
19 BB 11/10/10 2.40 900.1
20 BB 11/11/10 .30 112.!
21 BB 11/11/10 1.25 468.
22 MG 11/11/10 .50 75.
23 BB 11/12/10 .10 37.
24 BB 11/12/10 .20 75.
25 BB 11/15/10 '.05 18.
26 BB 11/15/10 1.05 393.
27 BB 11/16/10 1.00 375.
28 BB 11/17/10 .05 18.
29 BB 11/17/10 .20 75.
30 BB' 11/17/10 .45 168.
31 BB 11/17/10 .25. 93;
32 MG 11/17/10 ..35 - 52.

33 MG 11/17/10 .45 67.

34 BB 11/18/10 .25 93
% BB 11/19/10 .20 75
o6 BB 11/22/10 .05 18
37 BB 11/23/10 .05 18
38-BB- 11/24/10: - .15 56
37
BRADFORD BAUGH
DOK BAUGH. TARVIN&AMINI
AN AS^CIATION OF ATTORNEYS j m/ r I / -7f f
1550 THE ALAMEDA. SUITE 155 lAlFR THAN
SAN JOSE. CAUFORNi'A 95126-2304 TFB 21 2011 ^

LAST CHARGES BILLED ON: 01/11


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 12/10
OUVIER GARBE
() -
100 N. WHISMAN RD..#3521
MOUNTAINA/IEW, CA 94043
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00-R 7436)


mtK WH*)! iY>HVk

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00-R 7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS


l.BB 1/03/11 .10
2 BB 1/04/11 2.25
3 MG 1/04/11 .55
4 BB 1/05/11 .20
5 BB 1/05/11 .25
6 MG 1/05/11 .45

" 7 BB 1/06/11
3 BB 1/06/11
9 BB 1/07/U
. 10 BB 1/07/11
11 BB 1/08/11

12 BB 1/10/11 .10
13 BB 1/11/11 .25
14 BB 1/11/11 1.25
15 BB 1/12/11 .10
16 BB 1/12/11 .20 -
17 BB 1/12/11 .10
18 BB 1/12/11 .35
19 BB 1/13/11 .05
20 BB 1/14/11 .15
21 BB X/14/11 .05
22 BB 1/14/11 .10
23 BB 1/14/11 .05
24 BB 1/17/11 .90
25 BB 1/18/11 .10
26 BB 1/18/11 .35
27 BB 1/19/11 .10
28 BB 1/19/11 .10
. 29 BB 1/19/11 .95
30 BB 1/20/11 .30
31 BB 1/20/11 .15
32 BB 1/20/U 1.85
33 BB 1/21/11 .20
34 68 1/22/11 .05
5 BB 1/22/11 .50
^ BB 1/24/11 .15
.37. BB .1/25/11 . * 1.95- .
38 BB 1/25/11*
39rJw^. ^T/25/li
I .
STATEMENT-OFFICE COPY

-3597 NOV- 30. 2010 PAGE - ;

40 BB 11/24/10 .10 37.!


I 88 11/27/10 .10 -37.!
r2 BB 11/28/10 .45 168.;
43 BB 11/29/10 .-30 112.!
44 SB 11/29/10 .55 206.:
45 BB 11/29/10 .10 37.!
46 BB . 11/30/10 2.75 1,031.;
47 BB 11/30/10 , .55 206.;
48 BB 11/30/10 .10 37.!
49 BB 11/30/10 , 2.-95 1,106.;
24.70 $8,722.!

SUMMARY OF HOURS, RATES & FEES


BB .HOURS: 22.30 & $375.00 PER HOUR. $M62'.50
m HOURS: 2.40 $150100 PER HOUR $360.00
NET TOTAL HOURS: 24.70 NET TOTAL FEES:' $8,722.50

COSTS ADVANCED SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: COST


50 11/02/10 CLERK'S FEES. 361.C
51 11/30/lD RECORDER'S FEES. 40.0
52 11/30/10 CURRENT PHOTOCOPY CHARGES. 232.2
CURRENT COSTS: $633.2

ADJUSTMENTS TO PFUOR MONTH ENDING BALANCE: $1,412.75-


BALANCE FROM THE LAST STATEMENT $168,535.5
PLUS: CHARGES USTED ABOVE $9,355.7
PLUS: LATE PAYMENT CHARGE COMPUTED AT 12% ANNUAL
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE. PLEASE PAY

37 -3
BRADFORDBAUGH . JAN 31.2011 . .
. DOK, BAUGH; TARVIN & AMINl
' AN AS^CIATION OF ATTORNEYS
1550 WE AlAMEOA, SUITE 155 lAThR THAN I
SAN Jose. CAUFORNI'A 95126-2304 i * f / * ^
rift . M

LAST CHARGES BILLED ON: 01/11


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 12/10
OLIVIER GARBS
( ) -
100 N. WHISMAN RD.. #3521
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CA 94043
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00-R 7436)

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00 -R 7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS FE


l.BB 1/03/11 .10' 37
2 BB L/04/11 2.25 843
3 MG 1/04/11 .55 82
4 BB 1/05/11 .20 75
5 BB 1/05/11 .25 93
6 MG 1/05/11 .45 67

7 BB 1/06/11 2.25 843


3 BB 1/06/11 .85 318
9 BB 1/07/U .25 93
10 BB 1/07/11 .10 37
11 BB 1/08/11 4.55 1,706

12 BB 1/10/11 .10 37
13 68 1/11/11 .25 93
14 BB 1/11/11 1.25 468
15 BB 1/12/11 .10 37
16 BB 1/12/11 .20. - 75
17 BB 1/12/11 .10 37
18 BB 1/12/11 .35 131
19 BB 1/13/11 .05 18
20 BB 1/14/11 .15 56
21 BB ^14/11 .05 18
22 BB UlA/n .10 37
23 BB 1/14/U .05 18
24 BB 1/17/11 .90 337
25 BB 1/18/11 .10 37
26 BB 1/18/11 .35 131
27 BB 1/19/11 .10 37
28 88 1/19/11 .10 37
29 SB 1/19/11 .95 356
30 BB i/20/11 .30 112
31 BB . 1/20/11 .15 56
32 BB 1/20/11 1.85 693
33 BB 1/21/11 .20 75
34 BB 1/22/U .05 18.
5 88 1/22/11 .50 187
86 1/24/11 .15 56.
.. 38 -
.37. BB , 1/25/11 ' 1.95- - 731.
38 BB 1/25/11' - .25 93.
STATEMENT-QFFICElCOPY

7436-00 -3597 DEO 31. 2010

42 BB s,12/27/10 I .85 318.


1 BB izmm .40 150.
A BB 12/28/10 .10 37.
45 BB 12/29/10 .20 75.
46 BB 1/02/11 .05 18.
47 BB 1/02/11 JO 7^
17.80 .J5.741.

SUMMARY OF HOURS, RATES & FEES


BB HOURS: 13.65 B $375.00 PER HOUR $5,118.76
HG HOURS: 4.15 9 $156.00 PER HOUR . $622.50
NET TOTAL HOURS: 17.80 ' NET TOTAL FEES: $5,741.25

COSTS ADVANCED SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: COS*


48 12/06/10 COSTS- 10.
49 12/06/10 .COSTS- 21.123.
50 12/07/10 COURIER SERVICES. 204.
51 12/08/10 CLERK'S FEES. 655.
52 12/09/10 CLERK'S FEES. 110.
53 12/10/10 COSTS 315.
54 12/15/10 RECORDS REPRODUCTION. 200.
55 12/29/10 COURIER SERVICES. 18.
56 12/31/10 CURRENT PHOTOCOPY CHARGES. 243.
57 12/31/10 CURFIENT FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CHARGES, ^
CURRENT COSTS: $22,881.

PAYMENT ACTIVITY SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT:


.58 12/06/10 $50,000.00 PAID INTO THE GENERAL RETAINER.
59 l2/31/iO $50,000.00 FROM THE GENERAL RETAINER TO THIS BILL

/ADJUSTMENTS TO PRIOR MONTH ENDING BNMQEi $1,583;66-


BALANCE FROM THE LAST STATEMENT $177,891.1
. . PLUS: CHARGES LISTED ABOVE $28,622.!
MINUS: PAYMENTS FROM THE RETAINER $50,000.1
PLUS: LATE PAYMENT CHARGE COMPUTED AT 12% ANNUAL
TOt/U. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE. PLEASE PAY

ip;'>"7-
BRADFORD BAUGK
DDK, BAUGH. TARVIN & AMINI '
AN A SSOCIAflON OF A TTORNEYS I lEA }/^ . I :
1550 THEALAMEDA, SUITE 155
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126-2304 >. JAN 2i. ?11 B

LAST CHARGES BH_LED ON; 12/10'


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 12/10
OUVJERGARBE
100 N. WHISMAN RD..#3521
() -
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CA 94043
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE# 3597 GARBE-OISSOLUTIQN (00 -R 7436)

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DlSSOLLfTlON (00-R 7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS FBEi


1 SB 12/01/10 .05 18.7!
2 BB 12/01/10 .10 37.5'
- 3 BB 12/01/10 .10 37.5
4 BB 12/01/10 .95 356.2!
5 MG 12/01/10 .15 22.5'
6 BB 12/02/10 .85 318.71
7 BB 12/03/10 .10 37.5'
8 88 12/05/10 .05 18.7
1 BB 12/06/10 .45 168.7
-.0 BB 12/06/10 .10 37;5
11 BB 12/06/10 .20 75.0
12 MG 12/06/10 .20 30.0
13 MG 12/06/10 1.10 165.0
14 BB 12/07/10 3.75 1.406.2
15 BB 12/08/10 .20 75.0
16 BB 12/08/10 .20 75.0
17 BB 12/08/10 .25 93.7
18 BB 12/08/10 .25 93.7
19 BB 12/09/10 .05 18.7
20 BB 12/10/10 .05 18.7
21 BB 12/13/10 .05 18.7:
22 BB 12/13/10 1.05 393.7
23 MG 12/13/10 .15 22.5
24 BB 12/14/10 .05 18.7
25 BB 12/14/10 .05 18.7
26 BB 12/14/10 .65 243.7
27 BB 12/14/10 .05 18.7
28 BB 12/15/10 .20 75.0
29 MG 12/15/10 2.30 345.0
30 BB 12/16/10 . .15 56.2
31 BB 12/17/10 ;30 112.5'
3.2 BB 12/19/10 .55 206.2
33 BB 12/21/10 .20 75.0=
34 BB 12/21/10 .20 75.0*
35 BB 12/21/10 .05 18.7!
36 88 12/21/10 .15 56.2
7 BB 12/21/10 .20 75.0'
^ SB 12/21/10 .05 18.7!
39 MG 12/21/10 .15 : 22.51
40 BB 12/22/10 40 .20 75.01
41. Mr, 12/^/11 '
7436-00 -3597

1/26/11
1/26/11

42 B6 1/26/11
43 BB 1/27/11
44 MG 1/27/11
45 88 i/28/11
46 MG 1/28/11
47 MG 1/28/11
48 BB 1/29/11
49 BB 1/31/11
50 86 1/31/11
51 MG 1/31/11
52 MG 1/31/11

SUMMARY OF HOURS,RATES & FEES


BB mxisi 28.55 $375.00 PER HOW $10,706.25
HG HOURS: 3.90 0 $150.00 PER HOUR $585.00
NET TOTAL HOURS: 32.45 NET TOTAL FEES: $11,291.25

COSTS ADVANCED SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT:


53 1/06/11 COURIER SERVICES.
54 1/21/11 COURT REPORTER.
55 1/24/11 COURT REPORTER.
56 1/31/11 CURRENT PHOTOCOPY CHARGES.
CURRENT COSTS:

ADJUSTMENTS TO PRIOR MONTH ENDING BALANCE: $1,175.85-


B/\LANCE FROM THE LAST STATEMENT
PLUS: CHARGES LISTED ABOVE
PLUS: LATE PAYMENT CHARGE COMPUTED AT 12% ANNUAL
. TOTAL Amount due and payable, please pay
.BRADFORD BAUGhl:: - f-.-
DOK, BAUGH, TAFtVIN & AMiNI
AN ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS IVY r 'Sfi 13i
1550 THE ALAMEDA, SUITE 155 NO \ il

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126-2204

LAST CHARGES BILLED ON: 02/11


LAST PAYMENT RECEIVED ON: 12/10
OUV1ER GARBE () -
100 N. WHISMAN RD..#3521
MOUrsTTAIN VIEW. CA 94043
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE AT: 12%

FILE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUTION (00 -R 7436}

RLE# 3597 GARBE-DISSOLUnON (00-R 7436)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT: HOURS FE:


1 BB 1/31/11 .10 37
Z BB 2/01/11 .10 37
3 BB 2/01/11 .25 93
4 BB 2/01/11 .05 18
5 MG 2/01/11 f
.35 52
6 MG 2/01/11 1 .75 112

7 68 2/02/11 .20 75
^ BB 2/02/11 .90 337
i MG 2/02/11 i1 .20 30
10 BB 2/03/li .10 37
U BB 2/05/U .35 131
12 BB .2/07/11
.
.05 18
13 BB 2/09/11 .10 37
14 BB - 2.25 843
2/09/11 f
1
15 MG 2/09/U .20 30
16 BB 2/10/11 .05 18
17 BB 2/11/11 1 .10 37
1

18 BB 2/11/U 1 1.25 468


1

19 BB 2/12/11
i .
1.05 393
20 BB 2/14/11 1.15 431
21 BB 2/14/11 .05 18
1 ^
22 BB 2/14/11 .20 75
23 BB 2/15/11 1 ^ .85 318
24 BB 2/15/11 .25 93
25 BB 2/15/11 .10 37
26 BB 2/15/11
j .15 56
27 BB 2/16/11 .10 37
28 BB 2/18/11 .20 75
29 BB 2/18/11 .35 131
i
30 BB 2/22/11 :45 168
31 BB- 2/23/11 .45 . 168
32 BB 2/26/11 <
l.W 600
i *
33 BB 2/28/11 .45 168
34 BB 2/28/11 .15 56
35 BB 2/28/11 .35 131
'MG 2/28/11 .40 60
15.65 J5.441

SUMMARY OF HOURS, RATES &.FEES.^ ^


BB,_ HOURS.: y.^75 f
7436-00 -3597

MG HOURS: 1.90 @ J150.00 PER HOUR $285.00


NET total HOURS: 15.65 - NET TOTAL"FEES: $5,441.25

,oTS ADVANCED SINCE THE LAST STATEMENT:


37 2/05/11 COURIER SERVICES.
38 2/18/11 COURT REPORTER.
39 2/28/11 CURRENT PHOTOCOPY CHARGES.
CURRENT COSTS:

ADJUSTMENTS TO PRIOR MONTH ENDING B/^LANCE: $1,617.64-


BALANCE FROM THE LAST STATEMENT
PLUS: CHARGES USTED ABOVE
PLUS: LATE PAYMENT CHARGE COMPUTED AT 12% ANNUAL
. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE, PLEASE PAY

. -tyji I.

tiEi . c'-.y-.:
is..
FL-335
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WfTHOUT ATTORNEY(Name, State Bar number, and adtkeaa): FOR COURT USE ONLY
DIANA Q. DONG

1906 Worthington Cir.

Santa Clara CA 95050


TELEPHONENO.: 408 666-8116 FAX NO.(OpffonaO;
E-MAIL ADDRESS(Of^on^: DianaDDonggroail.com
ATTORNEY FOR(Name); Appellant in pro. per.
GALIFORNIAGOURTQFJAPPEAL 6TH DIST. r
STREET ADDRESS: 333 W. Santa Clara St.
MAiuNGADDRESS: 333 W. Souita Clara St.
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose CA 95113
BRANCHNAiyE: Appeals
CASE NUMBER:
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: DIANA Q. DONG
H041882
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: OLIVIER G. GARBE (If^jpSable,prmide):

HEARING DATE:
OTHER PAREI^/PARTY:
HEARING TIME:

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL DEPT.:

NOTICE: To serve temporary restraining orders you must use personal service(see form FL-330).

1. i am at ieast 18 years of age. not a party to this action, and I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place.
2. My residence or business address is: 498 Umbrla Pi., San Jose CA 95128

3. I served a copy of the following documents (specify): APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

by enclosing them In an envelope AND


a. I X I depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
b. I I placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown In item 4 following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served:Clerk of Superior Court for Judge MaryAnn Grilli, retired
b. Address: 201 N. First St., San Jose CA 95113

c. Date mailed: it
d. Place of mailing and s/afej; Santa Clara, CA

I I I served a request to modify a child custody, visitation, or child supportjudgment or permanent order which included an
address verification declaration.(Declaration Regarding Address VerificationPo^udgmentReque^to Modify a Chiid
Custody, Visitation, or Chiid Support Order{form FL-334) may be used for this purpose.)
6. i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is tme and correct

Date: f//fZ-XJCy)1
FENG WEN
(TYPE OR PROO'NAME) (SIGNATURE OF COMPLETING THIS FORM)
Page 1 of 1
Fomt Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedwo, 1013,1013a
Judicial Council of Califbmia PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
FL-335[l%sv.January 1,2012]
44
FL-335
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Aits/nff, Statt Bar number, anUaddree^; FOR COURT USE ONLY
DIANA Q. DONG

1906 Worthington Cir.

Santa Clara CA 95050


TELEPHONE NO.: 408 666-8116 FAX NO.(OpCbna?-
EAXAiLADDRESSfopcbnao. DianaDDongSgmall.com
ATTORNEY FOR Appellant In pro. per.

STREET ADDRESS: 333 W. Santa Clara St.


MAiuNGADDRESS: 333 W. Santa Clara St.
cfTY AND ZIP CODE; San Jose CA 95113
BRANCHNAME: Appeals
CASE NUMBER:
PETITIONEFVPLAINTIFF: DIANA Q. DONG
H041882
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: OLIVIER G. GARBE OfapplBMt. prnvUa):

HEARING DATE:
OTHER PARENT/PARTY:
HEARMGTME:

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL DEPTj

NOTICE: To serve temporary restraining orders you must use personal ser>rice(see form FL-330).
1. I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to tfils action, and I am a resident of or employed In ttie county the mailing took
place.
f,,

2. My residence or business address is: 498 Umbria Pi., San Jose CA 95128

3. I served a copy of the following documents fspec/^J; APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

by enclosing them In an envelope AND


a. I X I depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage folly prepaid.
b. I [ placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in Item 4 following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, It is deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope VMth postage folly prepaid.
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served:OLlVIER G. GARBE Respondent
b. Address: 2541 Fairbrook Dr., Mt. View CA 94040

c. Date mailed: f^C>} ^


d. Place of mailing>(^'ly a/w sfafej; Santa Clara, CA
5. I I I served a request to modify a child custody, visitation, or child support Judgment or permanent order which Included an
address verification declaration. (Declaration Regarding Address VerTi}catior>Pos^udgment Request to Modify a Child
Custody, Visitation, or Child Support Order(fomi FL-334} may be used for this purpose.)
6. I dedare under oenaitv
penalty of oeriurv
perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foreooina
foregoing is bue and correct 45

Date: tZ/f 17 k. /
-G
"G WEN
r
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATdre OF PERSW COMPtrPNG THIS FORM)
PaMton

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL Soiuix^s'


c HSl coNofavnpmce<rurftioiMOJ3i
FL-33S
ATraWEYORPAmYwrnOinATTOmeYrNanwStatafiarmrRtiar.aritfadUaais).- fOfl COURT USE OfO-Y
DIANA Q. DONG

1906 Worthington Gir.


Santa Clara CA 95050
TejEPHONENO.: 408 666-8116 FAXN0.{Cptttna9.
E-wjLAoosEsstOfitbai^: DianaDDong@ginail.eom
ArroRNErFORfMami^- Appellant in pro. per.

smEETADDRESS: 333 W. Santa Clara St.


wuuNoADDRESS; 333 N. Santa Clara St.
OTYANDzipoooE: San Josc CA 95113
BwcHNAME: Appeals
CAS NUMBER:
PETrnONER/PLAlNTIFF: DIANA Q. DONG
H041882
RESPONDENT/DEFENQANT; OLIVIER G. GARBS
KEARMOOATE:
OTHER PARENT/PARTY:
HEARMQTnyE:

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

NOTICE: To soive tempovaiy restralnfng ordore you must use pofsonal sendee(see foim FLr330).
1. i am at least 18 years of not a party to this action, and I am a resident ofor employed in the county where the mailing todc
place.
2. My residence or business addn^ is: 498 Umbria Pi., San Jose CA 95128

3. I served a copy ofthe following documents(Ispediiy;; APPELLANT > S OPENING BRIEF

by enclosing them in en env^ope AND


a. t X I depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal ServfoewHh the postege folly prepaid.
b. I I pl^ng the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown In Hem 4foncwfng our ordinary
business practices. I am readily fomlliar with this business's practica for collecting and processing correspomfonce for
mailing. On ttie^medaythatcorrespondence Is placed for collection and mailing,it Is deposited In the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage foSy prepaid.
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served:Heat]ier Allan ,minor's counsel
b. Address: 2076 Lincoln Ave
San Jose, CA 95125
c. Date mailed: Nov. 8, 2017
d. Place of mailing (Gity and sfofo^; Santa Clara, CA

5. I I I served a requestto nradity a drild custody, visitation, or child supportjudgment or permanent order wAtich Included an
address verification declaration.(DedamSon ReganSng Address VeriScaeonPostjudg^nent Request to MoOfy a CtOd
Custody, \fidtadon, or ChHd Support Order(form FL-334)may be used for this purpose.)
6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Cailfomie that the foregoing Is true and correct

Date:Nov. 8, 2017
FENG WEN
(TVPEORPRIMTKMilQ / csiaMnri^OFPERtoNOOMiHJEirmQrHisFOisyi)
Form Approvad tar Oi>lioni Ubo Coda or CMI Procaduro^%lOia lQ13a
Judicial Council orCoiitemia PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
FL-336(Rsv.January 1.Slt^
46