.

1. LA ~U~~HIUH CUUHI 1l1l001(OOL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 06/07/13 DEPT. 24
HONORABLE Robert L. Hess JUDOE G. Charles DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE
#5
B. Bell CiA
lUDGE PRO rEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
D.pij<)'Shcriff D. Read CSR 3949 stip Reporter
8:33 am EC296925 Plainllff
Counsel
Edward Hoffman (x)
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
MOTION: BOND ON APPEAL
D.f.ndant Austa Wakily
Counsel
The cause is called for hearing.
Th_e matte:J;"_ni_s__13,rgue!9:_ and submitted.
The fundamental argument by the Additional Jud~ment
Debtors is that because they paid the earlier Judgment
in NOvember 2012, which--was---l-alcge:t'--th!Y'l-this judgment,
they are good for the smaller judgment and will pay it
if this Court's judgment is affirmed. However, the
Court notes that in opposition to the ex parte a~pli­
cation, filed, May 16, 2013, counsel for the Add~tion­
al Judgment Debtors made an argument that in order to
pay the earlier judgment, they had to "borrow heavily
against real properties they own in Venice." They
also allege they will have to sell one or more prop-
erties to ~ay off that loan. While none of these
arguments ~s supported by admissible evidence, they do
call into question the ability of the Additional Judg-
ment Debtors to pay.
The aSsurances of intent to pay the pending judgment
are not supported by any evidence regarding regarding
ability to pay, nor which of chese entities proposes
to pay. Mr. Praske's declaration, in particular,
contains the vagueness On these subjects which has
been the hallmark of the positions of both Mr. Gaggero
(x)
Page 1 of DEPT. 24
MINUTES ENTlllRED
06/07/13
COtTNTY CLERX

2. LA oU~oH1UH cUUHI II1J OO:uOO~
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 06/07/13 DEPT. 24
1l0NORABLil Robert L. Hess JUDGE G. Charles DEPUTY CLIlRK
HONORABLIl
#5
JUDGIl PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
B. Bell CIA
6:33 am BC266925
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
D.putyShoriff D. Read CSR 3949 Stip
Plainl1ff
Coonsol
Edward Hoffman
D.fondant Austa Wakily
Counsel
KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
and the Additional Judgment Debtors throughout this
litigation. Rather, the Court is persuaded that the
extraordinary efforts Knapp, petersen & Clark have
been rewuired to exert in represent a continuing
manifestation of that conduct by Mr. Gaggero whIch
the Court has previously found to be his standard
operating procedure in response to demands thatr he
pays money he owes. The Court is not persuaded that
there is an~ ~enuine separation between Mr. Gaggero
and the Add~t~onal Judgment Debtors; rather, they are
his alter ego, established and maintained for the
purpose of defeating creditors claims.
In the execrise of its discretion, and pursuant to
CCP Section 917.9, the Court will require that the
Aditional Judgment Debtors post an undertaking in the
amount of $225,000 to cover the damages which Knapp,
petersen & Clark may suatain by reason of the stay in
in the present judgment. that sum is to be posted on
or before July 8, 2013, with proof of posting filed
with the Court and served on Knapp, Petersen & Clark.
A copy of the minute order is sent via facsimile
transmission as follows:
Edward Hoffman
310-442-4600
page ;3 of 2
Austa Wakily
889-749-5612
DEPT. 24
Reporr.er
(x)
(x)
MINUTES ENTERED
06/07/13
COUNTY C):..ERK