Request for Order: Attorney Fees and Costs
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
6) STELLIO NEDEROVIQUE,) Case Number: FDV-25-818547 7) Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 21, 2026 8) VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM 9) JELENA SMITH,) Department: 404 10) Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI 11)) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13
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 Stellio Nederovique and Respondent Jelena Smith are not married and they dated for 6 18 months. The parties do not have minor children in common. Petitioner is represented by attorney 19 Yosef Peretz. Respondent is self-represented. 20 2) On 7/23/2025, Petitioner filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order against 21 Respondent. 22 3) Several hearing dates were held between 8/15/2025 and 12/5/2025 during which Petitioner stated 23 he was having trouble getting Respondent served.
On 10/31/2025, Judge Gold made a finding that 24 Respondent is evading service and required Petitioner to serve Respondent by email and text 25 message. 26 4) According to the Proof of Service filed 11/10/2025, Petitioner’s moving papers were served by 27 email and text message. 28
1 5) On 12/5/2025, following a hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Court issued a 2-year 2 Restraining Order After Hearing protecting Petitioner from Respondent. 3 6) On 5/5/2026, the Court granted an ex parte request by Petitioner that he be permitted to have 4 Respondent served with the restraining order by alternate means. The Court ordered that service 5 of the restraining order be accomplished by email and text “and to known social media account(s) 6 via messenger or comparable method of communication.” 7 7) Now on for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 3/18/2026 asking the Court to award 8 him $65,645 in attorney’s fees and $7,342.10 in costs, for a total request of $72,987.10, under 9 Family Code section 6344. 10 8) At the prior 5/12/2026 hearing, Respondent appeared in pro per and stated she had not received 11 sufficient notice of the prior proceedings.
The Court adopted its Tentative Ruling without 12 objection and ordered the following: 13 a. The hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 3/18/2026 is continued to Tuesday, 14 7/21/2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. 15 b. At least 20 calendar days prior to the next hearing date, Petitioner shall file and serve a 16 declaration explaining why he believes (pursuant to Family Code section 6344(c)) that 17 Respondent has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay the fees and costs 18 requested.
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?”
Petitioner’s request for an alternative service method is hereby granted. Petitioner shall 25 serve the following documents on Respondent by email: 26 i. His Request for Order and all related pleadings (including the declaration the 27 Court is requiring the Petitioner to file regarding Respondent’s ability to pay) 28 ii. Copy of the Tentative Ruling Instructions 29 iii. Blank Responsive Declaration
1 iv. Findings and Order After Hearing for the 5/12/2026 hearing date. 2 v. Petitioner’s attorney shall also send a text message to Respondent and send direct 3 message(s) to Respondent’s known social media account(s) informing her of the 4 next hearing date, informing her that Court documents were emailed to her which 5 include a motion for attorney’s fees, and informing her of the amount in 6 attorney’s fees that Petitioner is requesting. 7 vi. In advance of the next hearing date, Petitioner shall file a Proof of Service 8 evidencing compliance with the order set forth above (and Petitioner’s attorney 9 shall attach to the Proof of Service screenshots of the text and other direct 10 messages to Respondent). 11 vii.
Petitioner’s attorney was also ordered to prepare the Findings and Order After 12 Hearing. 13 9) On 6/30/2026, Petitioner filed a Declaration. Petitioner states that when he first met Respondent, 14 Respondent was employed part-time at Nordstrom Rack from July through September 2024. 15 Petitioner states that after leaving Nordstrom Rack “and throughout the remainder of our 16 relationship, [Respondent] was not employed in a traditional full time job.” Instead, Petitioner 17 states Respondent had and continues to have an extensive social media presence (48,000 18 followers on TikTok and 1.9 million likes and 9,000 followers on Instagram) and she “represents 19 herself as an influencer, content creator, actress, and entertainment industry professional.” 20 Petitioner states that on 1/1/2026, Respondent posted that she was getting paid to be in a bikini 21 for “s3 of euphoria” and the post includes an image of “what appears to be a paycheck or other 22 type of payroll document from the HBO studio.”
The attached image appears to be only a small 23 excerpt of a document bearing Respondent's name, the words "Studio: HBO," and the phrase 24 "Check Details." The excerpt does not show the amount of any payment. On 1/24/2026, 25 Petitioner states Respondent published a social media post stating that she had “shot my 2nd 26 HBO show.” Petitioner states the post includes photographs depicting a building identified as 27 “Stage 17,” together with production tents and golf carts commonly associated with film and 28 television productions.
Petitioner states, based on Respondent’s own representations and the 29 contents of the post, he believes Respondent has worked on multiple HBO productions and has
1 received compensation for work in the entertainment industry. Petitioner also attached what he 2 states are screenshots of images from Respondent’s social media accounts which Petitioner states 3 show that Respondent collaborates with certain brands (e.g., Frankies Bikinis, I Am Gia, Tiger 4 Mist, Miss Mee, Windsor Store, and Edikted). Petitioner further provided what he states are 5 images from Respondent’s social media accounts which suggest she attended Coachella and 6 traveled to Joshua Tree. 7 10) On 6/30/2026, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Brief stating that Respondent has failed to appear 8 at every stage of these proceedings and has repeatedly evaded service.
Petitioner argues that by 9 refusing to participate in this action, Respondent has prevented Petitioner from obtaining 10 discovery or any financial information directly from her. Petitioner argues that he should not be 11 prejudiced by Respondent’s failure to participate in these proceedings or by her refusal to provide 12 financial information that only she possesses. 13 11) On July 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a Proof of Service stating that his Request for Order, supporting 14 papers, Petitioner's recently filed declarations, and “Tentative Ruling” were served on 15 Respondent by email and text message. 16 12) Respondent has filed no pleadings in this matter to date. 17 B.
Findings and Order 18 1) The Court notes there is no Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) on file for the prior 19 5/12/2026 hearing date because Petitioner’s attorney did not prepare and submit the FOAH to the 20 Court, as the Court previously ordered him to do. This means that Respondent has not been 21 served with a copy of the FOAH for the prior 5/12/2026 hearing date and the Court is unable to 22 find that Respondent has had sufficient notice of the 7/21/2026 hearing date. The Court also notes 23 that the Proof of Service filed by Petitioner on 7/8/2026 does not mention whether a copy of the 24 Tentative Ruling Instructions and a blank Responsive Declaration were served on Respondent, as 25 previously ordered and which are required to be served per San Francisco Local Rule 26 11.7(D)(3)(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 5.92(a)(1)(C). 27 2) The Court finds good cause to continue the hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 28 3/18/2026 to Thursday, 10/8/2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. 29
1 3) At least 30 calendar days prior to the next hearing date, Petitioner’s attorney shall have the 2 following documents sent to Respondent by email and text message and file a Proof of Service 3 evidencing service of: 4 a. Findings and Order After Hearing for the 5/12/2026 hearing date (Petitioner’s attorney to 5 prepare and submit to the Court); 6 b. Findings and Order After Hearing for the 7/21/2026 hearing date (Petitioner’s attorney to 7 prepare and submit to the Court); 8 c. San Francisco Tentative Ruling Instructions; 9 d.
Blank Responsive Declaration (FL-320); and 10 e. Blank Income and Expense Declaration (FL-150). 11 4) If Respondent wishes to oppose Petitioner's request for attorney's fees, Respondent shall file and 12 serve a Responsive Declaration (FL-320) and a completed Income and Expense Declaration (FL- 13 150) at least 10 calendar days before the next hearing date. 14 5) Petitioner’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing for the 7/21/2026 15 hearing date. 16 6) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 17 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 18 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 19 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 20 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 21 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 22 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 23
27
29