This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.

1. IIIIIIIIIIIIIJillIIH11111IIII11111IIIII11111IPIII11111IIIIIIIIJI11111IIIIIIII
CA2DB241675-01
{9074AFCE- 1280-4266-BA57-A76E106FE1 B7}
{137323}_309-130328:090149_{032713}
BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION

2. C_EB241675_
(Related Appellate Matters B207567, B209522,/3236610, B236834)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, and individual, et al,
Plaintiff and Appellants
VS.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants and Respondent
On Appeal from Los Angeles Superior Court,
Honorable Robert L. Hess, (213) 974-5625
Department 24, Case No BC286925
RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF
MILLER LLP
RANDALL A. MILLER (SBN 116036)
randy@millerllp.com
AUSTA WAKILY (SBN 257424)
austa@millerllp.com
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
Attorneys for Respondents

3. RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR AN
EXTENTION OF TIME
This is an appeal from the trial court's May 29, 2012 order amending the
judgment to add appellants as judgment debtors on the ground that they are the
alter ego of the original judgment debtor Stephen M. Gaggero. This appeal is one
of several filed by the various judgment debto_- none of the appeals have been
briefed. The appellants after having obtained a total of 60 days in extensions to
file their brief are now requesting another 60 days bringing the total to 120 days.
In support of the application counsel for the appellants, Edward Hoffman,
maintains that the appeal is "unusually complex factually, legally, and
procedurally." (See Application for Extension, Attachment 1). As explained
below, Mr. Hoffilaan's request for an extension is based almost exclusively on
new arguments, legal theories, and evidence he expects to raise on appeal. The
issues that are properly within the scope of this appeal have been thoroughly
briefed by appellants in their Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and the
Reconsideration of the Petitions for Writ of Supersedeas (filed by Mr. Hoffman).
1. Factual Complexity
First, Mr. Hoffi-nan avers that the appeal is factually complex because he
represents ten appellants "a corporation, four limited partnerships, two LLCs, and
three trusts." While it is true that Mr. Hoffman represents 10 appellants, this has
no bearing on the complexity of the appeal. This is because the appellants' only
argument as of the date of this response has been that there is "no evidence" that

4. the trustsor entities are the alter ego of Mr. Gaggero. (Declaration of Austa
Wakily, Deck AW _ 3-4, Exh. B and C). The appellants have made no effort to
distinguish the evidentiary findings as to each entity or trust and cannot do so for
the first time on appeal. Id.
As further support of the factual complexity of the appeal, Mr. Hoffrnan
claims that he has to review the 2,100 pages in records from the appeal of the
underlying lawsuit giving rise to the judgment- presumably to obtain new
evidence. (See Application for Extension, Attachment 1). That appeal is not at
issue here. Thus, Mr. Hoffinan is not required to review the expansive records
from the prior appeal.
2. Legal Complexity
As to the legal complexity, Mr. Hoffinan states that the appeal involves
"probate, equity, and taxation" along with issues of evidence and procedure. Mr.
Hoffman next avers the issue relating to a creditors ability to reach the assets of
an irrevocable trust "require unusually detailed legal analyses." (See Application
for Extension, Attachment l)(emphasis added). Fortunately, Mr. Hoffman does
not have to address these issues on appeal.
Appellants attempted to raise two arguments for the first time at the
hearing on the motion to amend the judgment. The fLrst, was that the motion
should have been filed in the probate court pursuant to Probate Code 17203 after
notice was provided to the "vested current income and principal and remainder
beneficiaries of these trusts." (Decl. AW _ 2, Exh. A at 3:14-24). The trial court

5. rejectedtheargumentasuntimely. (ld., Exh.A at 4:19-5:20;5:4-5)(counselfor
appellants'stated"I haveno explanationas to why [argument]wasn't in the
opposition").TheCourtalso rejected the new argument on the ground that the
appellants have consistently refused to provide information relating to the identity
of the beneficiaries, thus, they could not also argue that respondents were required
to give notice to the beneficiaries. (ld., Exh. A at 7:16-9:16). As of the date of
this response the appellants have refused to produce the trust documents.
The court similarly rejected the appellants' argument for the first time at
the heating that the trusts were irrevocable and could not be used to satisfy the
creditors' debts. Specifically the trial court stated "... the decision was made long
ago to keep the trust documents out of the hands of the defense, and now to try
and invoke the terms of it... without giving it to the other side" would be
improper.. (Id., Exh. A at 26:19-23). By way of analogy the trial court explained
that the appellants could not assert the right to plivacy as both a sword and a
shield. (Id., Exh. ART at 26:23-28). The appellants have waived any right to this
argument on appeal by failing to timely raise it and by refusing to produce the
trust documents.
3. Legal Issues on Appeal
The only issues on appeal ale as follows: (l) whether reverse-corporate
piercing was proper as to the facts of the present case, (2) whether the ruling on
the motion to amend the judgment is barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel,
and (3) whether respondents provided sufficient evidence to establish alter ego

6. liability. (ld., Exh. B andC). Respondentsrespectfullysubmitthatthis canbe
completedwithin 2 weeksgiventhatthelegalandfactualcomplexitiescitedby
appellantsarenotatissueinthisappeal.
RESPONDENTS REQUEST THAT THIS COURT DENY THE
APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR A 60 DAY EXTENSION
Given that the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal
issues, respondents respectfully request that this Court deny the appellants request
for a 60 day extension. The issues have been briefed on numerous occasions by
the appellants and can be properly submitted within 2 weeks.
Dated: March 27, 2013 MILLER LLP
RANDALL A. MILLER, ESQ. ./
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
& CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA,
STEPHEN M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI

7. PROOFOFSERVICE
l am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515
South Flower Street, Suite 2150, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201. On March 27,
2013, 1 served the within documents:
RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF
[] by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
[] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set
forth below.
[] by causing to be personally served to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below
on this date before 5:00 p.m.
[] by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office of the
addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
[] by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed
such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the envelope/package
for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the finn's practice of collection and processing
coxxespondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
Executed on March 27, 2013, at Los Angeles, California.

8. SERVICE LIST
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Edward A. Hoffilaan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD A.
HOFFMAN
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Attorney Judgment Debtor, STEPHEN M.
GAGGERO
Phone: (805) 267-1220
Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Attorneys for Judgment Debtors,
PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT, 1NC,
511 OFW LP, GINGERBREAD COURT
LP, MALIBU BROAD BEACH LP,
MARINA GLENCOE LP, BLU HOUSE
LLC, BOARDWALK SUNSET LLC,
AND JOSEPH PRASKE AS THE
TRUSTEE OF THE GIGANIN TRUST,
ARENZANO TRUST, AND
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
Phone: (310) 442-3600
Fax: (310) 442-4600
Email: eah@ho ffmanlaw.com