REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 OLENA KATS,) Case Number: FDV-25-818347) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 23, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ARTSIOM KHATKEVICH,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: 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) Petitioner Olena Kats and Respondent Artsiom Khatkevich previously had a dating relationship. 18 They are not married and do not have any minor children in common. 19 2) Following a long-cause hearing on 9/30/2025 and 12/2/2025, Judge Gold adjudicated the parties’ 20 mutual requests for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (Petitioner filed her request for a 21 DVRO on 4/21/2025 and Respondent filed his request for a DVRO on 7/8/2025).
Judge Gold 22 denied Respondent’s request for a DVRO and granted Petitioner a one-year Restraining Order 23 After Hearing (filed 1/6/2026). 24 3) Now on for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 3/3/2026 asking the Court to award her 25 $12,014.42 in attorney’s fees and costs under Family Code section 6344. Petitioner attached to 26 her Request for Order a declaration by attorney Ana Voloshko (who Petitioner retained after she 27 had filed her Request for DVRO and who represented Petitioner at the long-cause hearing). 28 Petitioner also attached invoices from her attorney Ana Voloshko for tasks performed between 29 5/16/2025 and 12/2/2025.
1 4) On 3/3/2026, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 2 5) On 4/7/2025, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration asking the Court to deny Petitioner’s 3 requested orders. Respondent claims that Petitioner’s Income and Expense Declaration conceals 4 her true income, expenses, and assets. Respondent also argues that Petitioner is not a true 5 prevailing party because the Court denied her request to include additional third parties as 6 protected parties, to order Respondent to attend a 52-week batterer intervention program, and her 7 request for a 5-year restraining order (limiting the restraining order to 12 months).
Moreover, 8 Respondent states that he prevailed regarding his request that Petitioner be ordered to return a 9 mobile phone number to Respondent. Respondent also argues that attorney Ana Voloshko is 10 unprofessional, caused delays in the case, and her invoices contain misrepresentations (for 11 instance, there are line items for discussions with opposing counsel, when Respondent has not 12 been represented by an attorney in this matter) as well as work performed by “KK” “OP” and 13 “KS” without explanation regarding who these individuals are.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Finally, Respondent argues he has 14 no ability to pay attorney’s fees and costs and that his business revenue has taken a hit due to 15 Petitioner’s “defamation.” Respondent attached as pg. 233 of his Responsive Declaration an 16 Income and Expense Declaration stating that he earns on average $3,800 per month in net self- 17 employment income, pays $3,697 per month in expenses, and has $0 in assets and debts. 18 Respondent attached a 2025 Schedule C to his Responsive Declaration which shows gross 19 income of $49,135 and expenses of $15,237. 20 6) On 4/14/2026, Petitioner filed a Reply Declaration.
Petitioner contends that Respondent is 21 misrepresenting is current earnings but provides no evidence to contradict Respondent’s 22 statements. Petitioner states that the attorney’s fees incurred are reasonable in light of multiple 23 hearings and trial preparation and that fact that her attorney billed her at a below-market rate. 24 B. Findings and Order 25 1) Family Code section 6344 states: “(a) After notice and a hearing, a court, upon request, shall 26 issue an order for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs for a prevailing petitioner... (c) Before 27 a court awards attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section, the court shall first determine 28 pursuant to Section 270 that the party ordered to pay has, or is reasonably likely to have, the 29 ability to pay.”
1 2) The Court finds that Petitioner is the prevailing party with respect to her Request for DVRO. The 2 Court finds that whether Petitioner has the ability to pay her own attorney’s fees and costs is 3 irrelevant. The Court is unable to find, based on the evidence presented by Petitioner and 4 Respondent to date, that Respondent has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to make any 5 contribution towards Petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner’s request is denied without 6 prejudice to a new Request for Order that is supported by evidence that Respondent has the 7 ability to pay the fees requested. 8 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 9
13
17
21
25
29