Koss v. Parker
Request for Order – Attorney’s Fees
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
This matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Mother’s 4/1/2026 Request for Order (“RFO”) re attorneys’ fees of $20,900 and costs of $817.88 as sanctions relating to the 5/23/2024 OSC Re: Contempt hearing. Filed with the RFO is the Declaration of Michael Fish, Esq., Mother’s Counsel, supporting the fee request with a summary of his work, time and charges, and attached billing statements, with privileged and irrelevant entries redacted. Despite being properly served with the RFO, Respondent/Father did not file a Responsive Declaration or otherwise object to the fee request. His most recent Income & Expense Declaration filed 9/22/2025 is incomplete in that it does not include page 3, which includes an itemization of monthly expenses, funds in deposit accounts, as well as the value of all real and personal property, and outstanding debts, purports to show income received between February and June 20, 2025, but fails to provide any verification of actual billing or receipts.
Appearances by both parties required.
SO ORDERED.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.