Matter of The Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust

material terms of the on-the-record settlement and doing so was the height of bad-faith.

8. This Court was dismayed with what happened but was not unprepared. This Court concluded March 6, 2026 Sec. 664.6 hearing by stating the following: THE COURT: Thank you. The settlement is approved pursuant to 664.6. And as I've indicated, I think on the record, should there be any failure in any documentation that the lawyers are contemplating, the Court, when that happens and it rarely happens, but it has, I just get a copy of the settlement that you put on the record from Tara, cut and paste it and put it in a judgment form. That is how it ends up. Now everybody understands that. [Emphasis this Courts]; Reporters Transcript of Hearing dated March 6, 2026 at 24:12-20, attached to Curtis Decl. as Exh. A.]

9. Instead of continuing to deal with Mr. Becker's bad faith redlined settlement agreements with vague and confusing waiver provisions and argumentative recitals, Plaintiffs simply asked the Court to do what it said it was going to do. Plaintiffs were not required to assume the risk of Mr. Becker's "gotcha" settlement agreement, given the simple terms of the on-the-record settlement, namely, "a payment of $1,600,000 within 30 days, and that will be a complete resolution of the case with no appeal." (Reporters Transcript of Hearing dated March 6, 2026 at 10:23-26, attached to Curtis Decl. as Exh. A.)

10. And when the Court sent around a proposed Judgment laying out the simple terms of the settlement, what ensued were several emails from Mr. Becker to this Court accusing Mr. Curtis of "breaching the duty of good faith and fair dealing." (See Email from Mr. Becker dated April 2, 2026, attached to Curtis Decl. as Exh. G.)

11. Because of the repeated bad-faith positions taken by Defendants' counsel set forth above, and as detailed further in the Declaration of Robert A. Curtis, Plaintiffs were forced to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $8,125 in attorney fees between March 7, 2026, and the filing of the opening brief. [Plaintiffs are waiving the additional 1.8 hours it took reviewing the Opposition and preparing the Reply and the anticipated 1 hour attending the hearing on May 13, 2026. Plaintiffs only seek the same amount of fees as set forth in their initial filing.]

In Summary This case is guided by the more stringent rules requiring subjective bad faith applicable to section 128.5. A reasonable attorney knowing all the facts and the applicable law would conclude, as this Court did, that the sanctions set are justified because Defendants' and their Lawyer's conduct was intended to cause unnecessary delay and/or was undertaken for an improper motive. The Defense Attorney, and the Defendants, have, with rhythmic regularity, taken a position (1) that is "wholly incredible" and (2) in total disregard of the "patent obligations of the contract" and (3) without "honest belief in the propriety or reasonableness" of the settlement.