Amelia Szasz v. David Semel

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 AMELIA SZASZ,) Case Number: FDV-25-818599) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DAVID SEMEL,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) On 8/26/2025, Petitioner Amelia Szasz (Mother) filed a Request for Domestic Violence 18 Restraining Order (DVRO) against Respondent David Semel (Father).

The parties are married 19 and have two children together, Charles (who turned 18 on 4/19/2026) and Isaiah (who is an 20 adult). Mother is represented by attorney Robert Rathmell. Father is self-represented. 21 2) On 11/5/2025, following a short-cause hearing, Judge Costin issued a 1-year DVRO against 22 Father for Mother’s and Charles’ protection (“until he turns 18”). On 5/5/2026, an Amended 23 DVRO was entered removing Charles as a protected party (because he turned 18 years old). The 24 DVRO for Mother’s protection is set to expire on 11/5/2026. 25 3) On 12/31/2025, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking $58,752 in fees, $1,929 in costs, and a 26 projected $10,000 “in connection with this Request for Order” under Family Code section 6344. 27 4) On 12/31/2025, Mother’s attorney filed a declaration stating that Mother has incurred $58,752 in 28 attorney’s fees and $1,929 in costs “related to pursuing and enforcing the DVRO” between 29 8/29/2025 (when Mother’s attorney was retained) and 12/31/2025 (the date of Mother’s

1 attorney’s declaration). Mother’s attorney estimates that Mother will incur an additional $10,000 2 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with responding to any opposition to this request, 3 prepare any reply, meet and confer with Father, and appear at the hearing on attorney’s fees if 4 required. Mother therefore seeks a total fee award of $70,681. Mother states that Father has the 5 ability to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees and costs because Father is a “partner at a law firm” and 6 “earns significantly more income than Mother.” 7 5) As set forth in the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 3/30/2026, the prior 3/19/2026 hearing 8 was continued to 5/21/2026 because Mother’s 12/31/2025 Request for Order had been 9 electronically served on Father and the Court did not see in the record that Father had agreed to 10 accept electronic service in this case. 11 6) On 4/21/2026, Mother’s attorney filed a Proof of Electronic Service stating that Mother’s 12 12/31/2025 Request for Order, Mother’s attorney’s declaration, blank Responsive Declaration, 13 and “proposed Findings and Order After Hearing for 3/19/2026” were emailed to Father on 14 3/26/2026.

Attached to the Proof of Electronic Service is a declaration by Mother’s attorney 15 stating that he does not have a mailing address for Father and his office attempted to personally 16 serve Father at his work address on 3/26/2026. Mother’s attorney attached an email from Father 17 dated 3/26/2026 which states: “I’ve been told you sent a process server to my office, in violation 18 my agreement to accept e-service and local rules governing service. Kindly refrain from further 19 disturbing my office and email me anything you intend to serve, then I won’t report you to the 20 State Bar.”

Mother’s attorney attached an email responding to Father’s email wherein Mother’s 21 attorney states: “Here's the email we sent you on 1/8/26 with the attached Request for Order for 22 Fees pursuant to Family Code section 6344. The hearing was on March 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in 23 Dept. 404 as indicated on the endorsed filed FL-300. The hearing took place and the court 24 adopted its tentative ruling. I've attached the FOAH prepared by our office although we have not 25 received the conformed copy yet from the Court.”

Mother’s attorney attached a second email to 26 Father wherein Mother’s attorney sends Father the Tentative Ruling Instructions. 27 7) The Court notes that on 4/20/2026 in related Case No. FDV-26-819100, Charles filed his own 28 Request for DVRO against Father. On 6/24/2026, Charles was granted a 3-year DVRO against 29 Father.

1 8) The Court also notes that on 4/29/2026, in related Case No. FCS-25-357634, Judge Pro Tem 2 Judith Harding ordered Father to pay Mother $2,100 per month in guideline child support and this 3 order is based on Father earning $16,083 per month and Mother earning $6,950 per month. 4 9) Father has filed no declarations responding to Mother’s attorney’s fee request. 5 B. Findings and Order 6 1) The Court finds good cause to grant Mother’s unopposed request for prevailing party attorney’s 7 fees under Family Code section 6344. 8 2) The Court hereby awards to Mother $48,000, which the Court finds to be a just, reasonable, and 9 necessary amount. 10 3) Effective 8/15/2026, Father shall pay to Mother’s attorney $2,000 per month by the 15th of each 11 month for 24 months. 12 4) Father’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 13 5) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 14 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 15 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 16 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 17 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 18 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 19 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 20

24

28

29