Motion to amend judgment points & authorities- signed

-I-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 3
A. UNDERLYING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT AGAINST
GAGGERO ............................................................................................................................ 3
B. ESTATE PLAN...................................................................................................................... 4
C. POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY EFFORTS ..................................................................... 6
III. DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................ 7
A. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO ADD
GAGGERO’S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS................................................ 7
1. Courts Have Inherent Authority to Prevent Frustration, Abuse, Or Disregard of Their
Process................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Alter Ego Claims are Appropriate for Gaggero’s Trusts and Business Entities................. 7
B. GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND AQUASANTE FOUNDATION ARE
GAGGERO’S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ......................... 8
C. PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT IS GAGGERO’S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST........................................................................................................ 10
D. GAGGERO’S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
ARE HIS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ............................... 11
E. PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS AND
GAGGERO WILL SANCTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST RESULT.... 13
F. REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO’S
CORPORATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, AND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS................................................................................................................. 13
1. Pacific Coast Management Corporation........................................................................... 14
2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships................................................... 14
IV. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 15

-II-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alexander v. Abbey of the Chimes (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 39, 45.................................................... 7
Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., Inc. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-840 ............ 8
Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal. App. 2d 113, 120.................. 7
Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1343 .................................................................. 8
Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 517 ...................................................... 8, 13
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 ....................................................... 13
Misik v. D’Arco (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1075..................................................................... 7
Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1518 ...................... 14, 15
Taylor v. Newton (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 752, 758–60 .................................................................. 14
Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc. (9th Cir.1995) 65 F.3d 119, 120.................................. 14
In re Schwarzkopf (9th Cir.2010) 626 F.3d 1032, 1037–1040.......................................................... 8
In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal 2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146 .............................................................. 14
LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903 ................................................. 14
Statutes
Code Civ. Proc. §187 .................................................................................................................... 2, 7

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
I. INTRODUCTION
Judgment Debtor Stephen Gaggero, fifteen (15) years ago, transferred all of his personal
assets, worth $35,000,000, into corporations, general partnerships, limited partnership, limited
liability companies, and self-settled trusts as part of an “estate plan.” Implementing the estate plan
involved two steps. First, Gaggero transferred his assets into a limited liability company or limited
partnership in which he owned completely. Second, he transferred his ownership interest in those
entities to one of his trusts or foundation. Gaggero’s primary residence, a 3,500 acre ranch, is also
owned by one of these trusts. By 1999 he had absolutely nothing in his personal name.
Consequently, he conducts all personal and business matters through his trusts or business entities.
Gaggero continues to exert full control over all of the assets in the estate as the “asset manager”
and has absolute authority to command payment of money by the trusts.
With the assistance of his attorneys, David Chatfield and Joseph Praske, Gaggero has used
this estate plan to avoid his obligation on a $1,520,943.30 judgment, now over $2,000,000, entered
against him by this Court. Gaggero has not only boldly touted his estate plan impenetrable, but he
and his attorneys have steadfastly refused to respond to post-judgment discovery claiming that the
information relating to his trusts or entities is irrelevant, invades third party privacy rights,
attorney client privilege, and other frivolous objections. When pushed - he simply claims to have
no responsive documents or information, then appeals. When ordered by this Court to provide
further responses - Gaggero disregarded it in its entirety. Gaggero’s behavior is entirely consistent
with this Court’s observations in the underlying trial. This Court, for example, found Gaggero,
“was often argumentative or evasive or deliberately obtuse in his answers.” Gaggero was wildly
evasive “[w]hen asked about his various trusts, foundations, corporations and other entities
supposedly created as part of his estate plan.” The Court noted similar credibility issues for
Gaggero’s attorney, Chatfield. This motion seeks to remedy that tack.
Judgment creditors Knapp, Petersen and Clarke’s, Stephen Ray Garcia’s, Stephen Harris’,
and Andre Jardini’s (collectively referred to as “KPC”) efforts to obtain post-judgment discovery
have been frustrated by steady stream of smoke and mirrors, carefully orchestrated by Gaggero

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
and his counsel. Basic discovery designed to ferret out the structure of Gaggero’s assets have
been met with frivolous responses and antagonism by Gaggero and his attorney, Chatfield. KPC is
further discouraged by the fact that the transfers occurred in 1997- beyond the limitations period
for fraudulent conveyance.
Ironically, the Court may recall, it was Gaggero who insisted on attorney fees provisions
in all his attorney-client retainer agreements (he has hired and fired dozens of lawyers), including
those with defendant, KPC, whom he – according to the Gaggero script - sued for legal
malpractice for every matter they ever represented him. Gaggero’s modus operandi was to use the
attorney fee provision to whipsaw his former counsel into favorable resolutions after he sued
them, yet when hoisted on his own petard, Gaggero unabashedly asserted that his assets were
impervious to execution. Such a one-way street cannot stand.
Fortunately, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 187 to address precisely
this situation. Section 187 grants courts the authority to use all necessary means to carry its
jurisdiction into effect, even those not provided for by statute, to compel obedience to its
judgments, orders, and process. Under the plain language of Section 187 and case law interpreting
the statute this Court has broad authority to amend the judgment to add Gaggero’s alter egos.
Pursuant to Section 187, KPC seeks to add Gaggero’s trusts and foundation as judgment
debtors through Praske, as the trustee. KPC also seeks to pierce seven business entities controlled
by Gaggero: one corporation and six limited partnerships and limited liability companies. Pacific
Coast Management, a Nevada corporation, is in essence Gaggero’s personal bank account, and
unmistakably his alter ego. The limited partnerships and limited liability companies were created
by Gaggero solely as a “vehicle” to transfer his ownership interest in properties to his trusts. The
entities have no business purpose other than to shield Gaggero’s assets, thus, should be
disregarded and added as judgment debtors as Gaggero’s alter ego. Finally, to the extent that
adding Gaggero’s entities as judgment debtors requires the application of “reverse-piercing” this
Court has authority under Section 187 supported by case law.

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
KPC, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court add Gaggero’s alter egos and/or the
real parties in interest: Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW, LP, Gingerbread Court, LP,
Malibu BroadBeach, LP, Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, and
Joseph Praske as trustee of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation.
This motion also seeks to add any successors to the entities, trusts, or foundation as judgment
debtors.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. UNDERLYING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT
AGAINST GAGGERO
Gaggero retained the law firm of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke to handle a number of matters,
including five lawsuits that are the basis of the underlying judgment. The cases included: Gaggero
v. Venice North Beach Coalition (VNC) which involved a malicious prosecution case filed by
against a group of homeowners who unsuccessfully opposed one of his real estate developments.
The suit was dismissed as a result of an anti-SLAPP motion and VNBC was awarded
approximately $100,000 in attorneys’ fees (approximately 150,000 at the time Gaggero retained
KPC); Gaggero v. Stacey involved a lawsuit filed by Gaggero against the attorney who handled
the VNBC matter for legal malpractice. KPC obtained a $350,000 judgment for Gaggero; First
Federal Bank v. Blanchard (First Federal 1) involved a deficiency judgment against Gaggero
(formerly known as Blanchard); Gaggero v. First Federal Bank (First Federal 2) involved a
lawsuit filed by Gaggero against First Federal Bank for wrongful foreclosure. Gaggero was
awarded $200,000 in damages and $750,000 in attorney fees. Slocumb v. Gaggero involved a
lawsuit against Gaggero for attorneys’ fees in the amount of about $150,000 for work done on
First Federal 2. Declaration of Austa Wakily (“A.W. Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A, A-2.
Gaggero, in December 2002, filed a lawsuit against KPC alleging legal malpractice for
their handling of the above five (5) cases. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, at al, Los
Angeles Superior Court (Case No BC286925). The case went to trial in 2007 and this Court ruled

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
against Gaggero. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. A). The ruling included an award of attorneys’ fees in KPC’s
favor. Gaggero appealed the decision, which was subsequently affirmed. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. A-2).
KPC filed an amended judgment on May 2010 including additional attorneys’ fees and costs on
appeal. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B). KPC has since been unsuccessful in enforcing the judgment against
Gaggero.
B. ESTATE PLAN
Gaggero, in or about 1997, began the creation of an estate plan to protect his substantial
wealth. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 94:10-15, 95:3-9). Gaggero worked with his estate planning attorney,
Praske, to transfer all assets and property he personally owned, including his 3,500 acre personal
residence, to various limited liability companies, general partnerships, limited partnerships, and
corporations. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F pp. 935-939). Gaggero first transferred all his assets into limited
liability companies and limited partnerships. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 96:9-19). Every asset that
Gaggero owned prior to the completion of his estate plan was owned 100% by him either by virtue
of his membership interest in the company, shares in the corporations, or direct title to the
property. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 100:10-14). Gaggero transferred approximately $35,000,000 to
$40,000,000 from his personal portfolio to an entity. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 104:22-26). Upon
Gaggero’s transfer of his assets to the various entities he would transfer his full ownership
interests in those companies to one of his trusts. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 935:23-28, 936:1). At the end
of the day, all of Gaggero’s property was held by either a limited partnership or a limited liability
company, which in turn, is owned by one of his trusts. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 937:1-7). As of 2005 the
value of the assets in the estate has increased substantially. (Id.,¶ 7, Exh. F at 942:8-10).
Gaggero’s estate is comprised of three trusts (two trusts and one foundation), multiple
partnerships, and multiple corporations. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. D at 309:19-21). The three trusts are the
Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 936:25-28). The
Giganin Trust is qualified personal residence trust which has ownership of 1,500 acres of
Gaggero’s personal residence. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 937:24-28). The 2,000 acres adjoining his
personal residence is owned by another one of Gaggero’s trusts, either the Arenzano Trust or

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
Aquasante Foundation. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 91:10-15). The Arenzano Trust is an off-shore trust
organized under the laws of Anguilla -known for its strong asset protection laws. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. S
at 69:1-11). The Aqua Sante Foundation is the third trust identified by Praske and Gaggero as
comprising Gaggero’s estate. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 936:25-28). All of Gaggero’s assets have been
transferred to an entity that is owned by one of these three trusts. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 937:1-7). All
of Gaggero’s personal and business matters are handled through his alter ego entities. In fact, one
of the entities owned by Gaggero’s trusts pays his utility bills, food expenses, dog’s veterinary
bills, and provides him with a car. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 13, 20, Exh. K at 69:22-28; Exh. L at 47:9-10; Exh.
S at 80:21-25, 81:1-4).
Praske, as the trustee of the trusts, has control over all the entities and assets in the estate
plan. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. D at 313: 12-14). Praske is the trustee of the trusts or foundation that owns the
shares to the corporations. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. D at 313:1-8). He is the trustee, managing member, or
majority membership owner with 100% ownership of all the various entities. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. D at
313:1-8). Praske’s role, however, is limited to advice. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. I at 4028:11-15).
Gaggero has retained control over his wealth as the “asset manager” of all the assets. (Id., ¶
5, Exh. D at 314:4-7) (emphasis added). In this capacity, Gaggero is in charge of “refinancing,
dealing with tax issues, insurance issues, making decisions to. . . buy or sell the asset, to improve
the asset, overseeing any improvement to the asset, financing, designing some ultimate disposition
of the asset.” (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 110:12-19). Gaggero makes determination as to the highest and
best use of all the assets. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 115:15-20). He also represented the trust in
negotiating the purchase of a $1,500,000 ocean front property in Santa Monica. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at
110:3-9). According to Praske, Gaggero is “the decisionmaker” with respect to all the real estate
held in the estate plan and he looks to him in making those determinations. (Id., ¶¶ 8, 10, Exh. G at
1002:25-28; Exh. I at 4028:2-19).
The ownership interest of the trusts and business entities are identical. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. I at
4035:4-7). Gaggero is the trustor of the Arenzano Trust, Aqua Sante Foundation, and Giganin
Trust. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 936:25-28). He is in a class of beneficiaries in the Arenzano Trust and

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F pp. 994-995). He is the beneficiary of the Giganin Trust
in the sense that it is his personal residence. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 937:24-28). Praske is the trustee of
all three trusts. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 995:18-19). Praske was retained by “all of the entities that
comprised part of Gaggero’s estate.” (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F at 905:1-2). The trusts own entities created
by Gaggero for the sole purpose of “owning real property.” (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. S pp. 40-49, 53-55).
Praske is the agent for service of process for all entities associated with Gaggero. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17,
Exh. O, P). The business addresses of the various entities are also identical. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17, Exh. O,
P). While there are numerous other entities and trusts that are part of Gaggero’s estate, KPC, has
sufficient evidence to support the alter ego liability for the trusts and entities identified in this
motion. KPC will file additional motions to amend this judgment, as necessary, to pierce
Gaggero’s asset protection plan.
C. POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY EFFORTS
Because Gaggero transferred all ownership interest in his assets to various entities, trusts,
and foundation he refuses to respond to post-judgment discovery asserting that he has “no
attachable interest.” (Id., ¶ 18, Exh. Q). Gaggero further asserts that any information related to his
corporations, partnerships, trusts or foundation are irrelevant and violate the privacy rights of third
parties. (Id., ¶¶ 18-19, Exh. Q, R).
KPC, after numerous appeals and stays in the underlying matter, served post-judgment
Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on April 25, 2011.
Despite a three week extension, Gaggero did not produce any documents in response to the
Requests. (Id., ¶ 18). With respect to the special interrogatories, Gaggero provided evasive and
frivolous responses. (Id., ¶ 18, Exh. Q). KPC filed a motion to compel further responses to post-
judgment special interrogatories on August 9, 2011. This Court granted the motion to compel on
October 5, 2011 ordering Gaggero to provide further responses without objection and awarded
sanctions against Gaggero and his counsel in the amount of $2,700. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. N). Gaggero
has ignored the court’s order in its entirety.

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
KPC served Gaggero with Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) on January 31,
2012. (Id., ¶ 19, Exh. R). The responses were due on March 6, 2012. (Id., ¶ 19). KPC granted
Gaggero and extension to March 20, 2012 to accommodate his travel/vacation schedule. (Id., ¶
19). Gaggero again failed to produce any documents including only boilerplate and improper
objections based on relevance and invasion of privacy. (Id., ¶ 19, Exh. R). Further post-judgment
discovery propounded to Gaggero will be similarly futile without amendment of judgment.
III. DISCUSSION
A. THIS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO ADD
GAGGERO’S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS
1. Courts Have Inherent Authority to Prevent Frustration, Abuse, Or Disregard
of Their Process
Every court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process in an
action or proceeding pending before it, and to use all necessary means to carry its jurisdiction
into effect, even if those means are not specifically pointed out in statutes. Code Civ. Proc. §187;
Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal. App. 2d 113, 120 (emphasis
added). In order to see that justice is done, great liberality is encouraged in allowing amendments
brought pursuant to Section 187. Misik v. D’Arco (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1075. Section
187 authorizes a court to amend its judgment to impose liability upon an alter ego who had control
of the litigation, and was therefore represented in it. Alexander v. Abbey of the Chimes (1980) 104
Cal.App.3d 39, 45. Here, Gaggero clearly has full control of the estate plan and continues to
access all its resources as he sees fit. The trusts and entities in Gaggero’s estate are his alter egos
and should be added as judgment debtors. This Judgment has little, if any, effect without an
amendment to the judgment piercing Gaggero’s estate plan.
2. Alter Ego Claims are Appropriate for Gaggero’s Trusts and Business Entities
If an entity is the ‘alter ego’ of an individual, the assets of the entity may be determined to
be the assets of the individual for the purpose of satisfying a claim. Greenspan v. LADT LLC

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
(2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 517. Although the doctrine is most often applied to corporations, it
also applies to trusts. Id at 520-521; In re Schwarzkopf (9th Cir.2010) 626 F.3d 1032, 1037–1040.
Because a trust is not a legal entity, the proper procedure to reach trust property is to sue the
trustee in his or her representative capacity. Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331,
1343. Additionally, equitable ownership in a trust is sufficient to meet the ownership requirement
for purposes of alter ego liability. Id at 1339. KPC, therefore, seeks to add Joseph Praske, as
trustee of Gaggero’s trusts.
Alter ego liability exists when two conditions are met: First, there is such a unity of interest
and ownership that the individuality, or separateness, of the individual and corporation has ceased;
and, Second, adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would sanction a
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.App.4th. at 511. Factors suggesting an alter
ego relationship include, in part: the identical equitable ownership in the two entities; the
treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own; the use of the same office
or business location; the employment of the same employees and/or attorney; the use of a
corporation as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or the business of an
individual or another corporation; the concealment and misrepresentation of the identity of the
responsible ownership, management and financial interest, or concealment of personal business
activities; the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm's length relationships
among related entities; the diversion of assets from a corporation by or to a stockholder or other
person or entity, to the detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets between entities so as
to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another and; commingling of funds and other
assets and failure to segregate funds of the separate entities. See Associated Vendors, Inc. v.
Oakland Meat Co., Inc. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-840 (citations omitted). Because no
single factor is determinative a court must evaluate all the circumstances to determine whether to
apply the doctrine. Id at 838.
B. GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
ARE GAGGERO’S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
Applying the above factors, there is no doubt that the trusts comprising Gaggero’s estate
plan are his alter egos. As stated above, the plan took several months to implement and involved
two key steps. First, Gaggero transferred all his assets to corporations, limited liability companies,
or limited partnerships in which he had 100% ownership interest. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 100:10-14).
Second, Gaggero transferred his ownership interests in the various business entities in one of his
three self-settled trusts. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 7, Exh. C at 100:10-14; Exh. F pp. 936). Gaggero, at the end of
the day, concealed all his assets in an entity owned by his trusts. By implementing the estate plan
Gaggero is forcing his creditors to penetrate multiple layers of sham entities in order to ultimately
pierce his estate plan. All of his personal and investment matters are handled through the sham
entities that are owned by his trusts.
Gaggero’s various trusts, foundation, and business entities are all part of one estate plan
(his estate). The trusts and entities in his estate plan constitute a single enterprise and have no
separate identity. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). When asked how he would take title to a property,
Gaggero stated “I could take this asset in my name, transfer it to an entity, a limited liability
company, a limited partnership, a general partnership, or a corporation, and then have one of the
trusts or the foundation subsume. . . that entity into the estate plan, just like I did the other
properties in 1997 and 1998.” (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). Gaggero does not distinguish between
the different trusts or foundation in the estate plan, nor does he distinguish between the entities in
the estate plan. Gaggero, in purchasing a property or asset, looks at “the liquidity of the trust at the
time” in determining how to acquire the property within his estate. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 119:13-23).
Finally, all gains on the properties flow through Gaggero’s tax returns via the trusts and all other
entities. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. I at 4035:4-7).
Gaggero also has retained full control over all assets in the trusts as the asset manager. (Id.,
¶¶ 4, 9, Exh. C at 120:2-6, 121:22-23; Exh. H pp. 3426). Gaggero testified that he “always had
the ability to borrow money against the assets in the trust or pull cash directly out of the
trust.” (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 120:2-6, 121:22-23). With respect to his ability to purchase a
$1,100,000 ocean front property Gaggero testified that “[a]t all times I commanded the

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
resources to purchase this all cash or with a mortgage, and if there happened to be a 1031
exchange opportunity available, I would have exchanged it into one of the entities that were
owned by my trust.” (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. H pp. 3426-3427). Again, Gaggero looked at the estate as a
whole in determining how to acquire additional property.
Gaggero as the “asset manager” has authority to negotiate on behalf of the trust to purchase
properties. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at 110:3-9). He is in charge of refinancing, dealing with tax issues,
insurance issues, making decisions to buy or sell the asset, to improve the asset, overseeing any
improvement to the asset, financing, designing some ultimate disposition of the asset. (Id., ¶ 4,
Exh. C at 110:12-19). Gaggero makes all decisions with respect to all the real estate held in the
estate plan and Praske follows his recommendations. (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. G at 1002:25-28). Ultimately,
all assets in the estate plan are controlled by Gaggero, as the equitable owner and “asset manager.”
(Id., ¶ 8, Exh. G at 1002:16-28, 1003:1-3).
Finally, both Gaggero and Praske refer to the trusts, foundation, entities, and its assets as
constituting “Gaggero’s estate plan” or Gaggero’s “personal estate.” (Id., ¶¶ 7, 9, Exh. F at
936:25-28; Exh. H at 3426: 5-8). Gaggero refers all assets within the estate plan as “his assets” or
“my assets.” (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. E at 617:3-7). Praske also refers to the trusts as belonging to Gaggero.
(Id., ¶ 7, Exh. F pp. 936-937). For example, in a declaration Praske stated that he is the trustee of
“Gaggero’s personal estate” which has funds well in excess of $1,100,000. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. M).
Praske also described the Arenzano Trust, Giganin Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation as the three
Trusts that are part of “Gaggero’s estate.” (Id., ¶¶ 7, 14, Exh. F at 936:24-28; Exh. M). Gaggero
should not be permitted to access the funds and resources in his estate plan, which are clearly
under his control when it is to his benefit, but hide behind the same estate plan when it is to his
detriment. The Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation, should therefore be
added as judgment debtors via Praske as the trustee.
C. PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT IS GAGGERO’S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
One of the corporations identified by Gaggero as part of the estate plan is Pacific Coast
Management (PCM). (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. K at 39:17-21). Gaggero uses his alter ego, PCM to write
checks on his behalf so as to avoid retaining any assets in his personal name, including a personal
bank account. (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. L at 47:9-10). Gaggero provides PCM money and PCM writes
check on his behalf. (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. L at 47:9-10). “Checks were written by PCM. I paid for it. I
give PCM the money. PCM writes the checks. They write checks for me. They pay my utilities.
They pay my credit card, they pay for my dog’s vet bills. I mean PCM manages my life. They
are a management company for me personally.” (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. K at 69:22-28(emphasis added). .
. . P.C.M. only manages my estates, entities, and assets” (Id., ¶ 13, Exh. L. at 47:9-10)
(emphasis added).
Although PCM pays for all of Gaggero’s personal expenses and “manages his life”
Gaggero could not answer basic questions relating the entity. Gaggero did not know whether PCM
had Articles of Incorporation, whether there were officers or directors, if he was a director, and
when it was formed. (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. K pp. 37- 39). PCM’s “in house” counsel, Chatfield, similar
did not know basic information relating to the entities, including the ownership, place of
incorporation, and the entities that retained him as an in-house counsel. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. A pp. 13-
14). PCM, clearly was established by Gaggero as part of the estate plan designed to evade
creditors and has been used as his alter ego. Since PCM is willing to provide Gaggero money and
resources to pursue countless lawsuits, PCM should not have a problem paying adverse judgments
that arise from those lawsuits. PCM, therefore, should be added as a judgment debtor.
D. GAGGERO’S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
ARE HIS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
Gaggero’s limited liability companies and limited partnerships were created for the sole
purpose of taking legal title to his real property. As discussed above, this was his first step in
creating the estate plan. The following entities have been identified as Gaggero’s alter egos: Blu
House, LLC, Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, Malibu Broad Beach, LP, Marina Glencoe, LP, 511 OFW,
LP, and Gingerbread Court, LP. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 10, 20, Exh. C, I, S).

-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
Blu House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC was created on May 23, 1997. (Id., ¶ 17,
Exh. P). Blu House, LLC’s business purpose was ownership of property located at 523 Ocean
Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Boardwalk
Sunset, LLC’s business purpose was ownership of property located at 601 Ocean Front Walk,
Venice, California. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 47:6-25, 47:1-6). Gaggero was
the owner of properties located at 523 and 601 Ocean Front walk, Venice, California. (Id., ¶ 4, 20,
Exh. C at 96:9-19; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Praske is the agent for service of process for both
companies. (Id., ¶ 17, Exh. P). Both companies have as their address 1473F South Victoria Ave,
Ste., 201. (Id. ¶ 17, Exh. P). Blue House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC are two of the entities
created as part of Gaggero’s estate plan for the sole purpose of moving his property out creditors
reach. The entities, thus, should be disregarded and added as judgment debtors. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C at
96: 9-19, 104:16-21).
Less than one year after establishing the above companies, Gaggero established Malibu
Broad Beach, LP and Marina Glencoe, LP. These limited partnerships were created on February 5,
1998 and have Praske listed as the agent for service of process. (Id., ¶ 17, Exh. P). Malibu
Broadbeach, LP and Marina Glencoe, were established for the purpose the ownership of property
previously owned personally by Gaggero. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 10, 20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. I pp. 4031-
4032 ; Exh. S at 53:3-25). Malibu Broadbeach, LP is associated with ownership of a house owned
by Gaggero in Malibu, on Broadbeach. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 10, Exh. C at 96:14; Exh. I pp. 4031-4032).
Additionally, Malibu Broadbreach, LP is associated with the Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 8,
Exh. C at 96:14; Exh. G pp. 1003-1005). Marina Glencoe, LP’s business purpose was ownership
of property Gaggero owned in Marina del Rey on Glencoe. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. S at 54:15-20, 55:7-
16). Both entities were created by Gaggero as a means of shielding personal assets from creditors.
The entities should be added as judgment debtors as Gaggero’s alter ego.
One month later, Gaggero created two more limed partnerships. These are 511 OFW, LP
and Gingerbread Court, LP. Both were created on March 12, 1998. (Id., ¶ 17, Exh. P). Both have
as the agent for service of process Praske. (Id., ¶ 17, Exh. P). Both were established for the

-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
purpose of owning property. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. S pp. 40-44). 511 OFW, LP had as its business
purpose the ownership of 511 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 20, Exh. C at 96:9-
19; Exh. S at 40:22-25, 41:1-2). Gingerbread Court, LP had as its business purpose the ownership
of 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. S at 43:11-17, 44:2-11). Gaggero
owned both 511 and 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California and transferred those assets to
these limited partnerships. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 20, Exh. C at 96:9-19, 103:2-5; Exh. S pp. 41-44). These
entities are Gaggero’s alter ego and created for the sole purpose of shielding personal assets from
creditors. OFW, LP and Gingerbread Court, LP should be added as judgment debtors as Gaggero’s
alter ego.
E. PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS
AND GAGGERO WILL SANCTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST
RESULT
The second requirement for application of the alter ego doctrine is finding that the facts are
such that adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would sanction a
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.App.4th. at 511. The test for this
requirement is that if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, it will produce an unjust
or inequitable result. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300. In this case
allowing Gaggero to avoid his obligation through the use of his estate plan, set up to shield his
personal assets from creditors, will result in an injustice to KPC and other creditors. Gaggero
created the estate plan 15 years ago foreclosing claims for fraudulent conveyance. Additionally,
piercing Gaggero’s estate plan is likely to deter his continued disregard of this Court’s orders and
other court orders.
F. REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO’S
CORPORATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, AND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS
To the extent this case requires the application of reverse piercing- the use of a
corporation’s assets to satisfy a shareholder’s personal debt- it is fully justified and within this
Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of its process and supported by California case law.

-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MILLER|LLP
1. Pacific Coast Management Corporation
Pacific Coast Management is a Nevada corporation. (Id., ¶ 19, Exh. R). Nevada law
recognizes reverse corporate piercing as an appropriate avenue to impose liability on a judgment
debtor’s alter ego. The application of the doctrine is especially appropriate when the judgment
debtor uses an entity to hide assets or secretly conduct business as part of an attempt to avoid his
pre-existing liability. LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903. As
discussed in detail above Pacific Coast Management, as an entity that manages Gaggero’s life, is
clearly subject to alter ego liability. Because it is a Nevada corporation, and Nevada recognizes
reverse corporate piercing, Pacific Coast Management can properly be added as a judgment
debtor.1
2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships
Under California law an entity or series of entities created with no business purpose and
simply as a means of shielding personal assets from creditor is viewed as the alter ego of the
individual debtor and will be disregarded to prevent injustice. In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal
2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146. California also recognizes the application of reverse-piercing to impose
alter ego liability against a corporation for a judgment incurred by its sole shareholder. Taylor v.
Newton (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 752, 758–60; See e.g. Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc.
(9th Cir.1995) 65 F.3d 119, 120 (“it is beyond cavil that an inequitable result would follow were
the Court to permit the judgment debtor to shield himself with corporate form”); But see Postal
Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1518 (court refused to apply
reverse piercing where judgment creditors sought to use corporate assets to collect on a former
shareholder’s personal debt).
California more recently addressed reverse-piercing in Postal Instant Press, Inc. supra,
162 Cal.App.4th at 1518. The judgment creditors in Postal Instant Press sought to use a
corporation’s assets to satisfy the personal debt of a former shareholder. Id. The court refused to
1
If PCM is subject to California’s law on reverse-piercing the same analysis applicable to
Gaggero’s limited partnerships and limited liability companies will apply, in which case reverse-
piercing of PCM is also proper in this case.

a..
....J
....J
0:::
W
....J
....J
1 apply reverse piercing because (1) the corporate form was not being misused; (2) innocent
2 shareholders of the corporation would be adversely affected by a decision that would require a
3 corporation to pay for the debts of an individual shareholder, and (3) the judgment creditors had
4 sufficient l~gal remedies to pursue without the necessity of reverse piercing. Id. at 1522-1523.
5 Postal Instant Press does not address the situation, as is here, where an individual uses a
6 corporation or other entity as an alter ego to shelter personal assets rather than the other way
7 around. Postal Instant Press is inapposite.
8 Assuming, however, that Fostal Instant Press applies to Gaggero's business entities, KPC
9 meets the standards to justify its application. Postal Instant Press recognized that there may be
10 circumstances in which reverse piercing is acceptable. Id. at 1524. To apply reverse piercing KPC
11 must show that innocent creditors would be adequately protected and that there are inadequate
12 legal remedies. Id. Here, there are no innocent shareholders. The trusts, foundation, and entities
13 are part of Gaggero's "estate plan" and are merely his alter ego. He established the entities to
14 shelter his wealth and continues to have full access and control over his assets. (Id., ~ 4, Exh. C at
15 120:2-6, 121 :22-23). Second, because the transfers occurred in 1997 KPC cannot pursue claims
16 for fraudulent transfer. Thus, to the extent this case involves the application of reverse corporate
17 piercing, it is appropriate and within this Court's authority.
18 IV. CONCLUSION
19 For the foregoing reasons, judgment creditors KPC, respectfully request this Court to
20 amend the judgment to add Gaggero's alter egos and/or the real parties in interest to the judgment.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: April 10, 2012
MILLERLLP
By: ~iA W~~RANDALL A. MILLER, ESQ.
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
-15-

Motion to amend judgment points & authorities- signed

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (8)

Similar a Motion to amend judgment points & authorities- signed

Similar a Motion to amend judgment points & authorities- signed (20)

Último

Último (20)