PAMELA RUTH APPLE v. MICHAEL EUGENE LIPSON

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

5) 6 PAMELA RUTH APPLE,) Case Number: FDI-21-795080) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 11, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MICHAEL EUGENE LIPSON,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1008 (A) (B) 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 15 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 16 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Pamela Ruth Apple and Respondent Michael Eugene Lipson. 19 2) On 4/10/26, the Court issued an order: (a) declining to stay the 7/17/25 order appointing a 20 discovery referee; (b) appointing Kate Merrill as discovery referee; (c) permitting Respondent to 21 make a one-time withdrawal of $50,000 from the CUSCO account to pay discovery referee, Kate 22 Merrill; (d) denying Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees under Family Code section 2030; and 23 (e) denying Petitioner’s request for advancement of funds.

See Findings and Order After Hearing 24 (FOAH) on 3/26/26 (file dated 4/10/26). The Court notes this matter was taken under submission 25 after the 3/26/26 hearing. 26 3) On 4/23/26, Respondent filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order file 27 dated 4/10/26 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subsections (a) and (b). 28 Respondent requests the Court modify the order as follows: 29

1 a. Permit $20,000 (instead of $50,000) withdrawn by Respondent and paid to discovery 2 referee, Kate Merrill; or 3 b. Vacate the Court’s appointment of discovery referee, Kate Merrill. 4 4) On 4/23/26, the Court denied Respondent’s request for emergency relief and set the matter for 5 regular hearing on 6/11/26. 6 5) On 5/29/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Respondent’s motion for 7 reconsideration wherein it appears Petitioner renews her request for Family Code section 2030 8 attorney’s fees, which was denied in the Court’s 4/10/26 order.

Petitioner states Kate Merrill may 9 no longer be available to serve as discovery referee and requests that $20,000 be advanced to the 10 first available of Kate Merrill or Scott Slomiak (who is an alternative discovery referee). 11 Petitioner requests the Court vacate the 6/26/26 Status Conference and advance Petitioner 12 $20,000 from the CUSCO account. 13 6) On 6/2/26, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration. Respondent states that there is no evidence that 14 Kate Merrill requested $50,000, and that the first time he heard the figure was from Petitioner’s 15 counsel during the 3/26/26 hearing.