Shannon Renee Mancini v. Phillip Dominick Mancini

Respondent Phillip Mancini (Phillip) brought a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 24, 2026, order granting Petitioner (Shannon) appellate attorney’s fees. Shannon originally filed a request for order (RFO) attorney fees on February 18, 2026. Phillip failed to file a timely opposition to Shannon’s February 18 RFO, filing his responsive declaration on March 18 for the March 24 hearing, and only served Shannon by mail. Then, on March 20, Phillip filed a witness list. On March 23, the Court issued a tentative order granting Shannon’s RFO in part and denying it in part. Phillip did not give notice he was contesting the tentative but appeared on March 24, and requested an evidentiary hearing. The Court declined to grant an evidentiary hearing and adopted the tentative ruling.

Phillip now requests reconsideration on two grounds, one procedural and one substantive. Procedurally, Phillip argues that he was denied due process because the Court declined to grant an evidentiary hearing on his opposition to the RFO. Phillip was provided all the process due to him - he had notice of Shannon’s motion and had the opportunity to oppose it. He forfeited his right to oppose it by failing to file a timely opposition. Then Phillip was given notice of the Court’s tentative ruling, he again forfeited his right to oppose the tentative by failing to give Shannon notice that he intended to appear to contest it.

Phillip’s due process claim is undermined by his failure follow proper procedures entitled to ensure both parties have notice and an opportunity to be heard. Nor did Phillip show good cause for his failure to timely file a responsive opposition or to follow the tentative ruling procedures. He has not shown that any new or different facts, circumstances or law applies that would justify reconsideration of the order.

Substantively, Phillip simply repeats his argument that Shannon should not be awarded fees, but has not shown any new or different facts, circumstances or law that would justify reconsideration

FL2204084

of the order. Just as he did in his opposition brief to the original motion – which the Court considered notwithstanding its untimeliness – he argues Shannon is willfully underemployed and failing to heed the Court’s prior Gavron warning. The Court already considered these factors in making its prior ruling. Phillip argues there are material disputed facts which he would seek to address at an evidentiary hearing but fails to identify any specific facts that are in dispute. Phillip mostly takes issue with how he believes Shannon characterized his lifestyle, but the Court only considered the information in the income and expense declaration and gave no weight to extraneous consideration such as how one party characterized the other.