Preview
1 Jacob Harker (State Bar No. 261262)
LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
2
268 Bush St. #3732 ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, CA 94104 F I L E D
Tel: (415) 624-7602 Superior Court of California,
4 County of San Francisco
Fax: (415) 684-7757
5 Email: jacob@harkercounsel.com 05/19/2022
Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
6
Daniel L. Balsam (State Bar No. 260423) Deputy Clerk
7 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
2601C Blanding Avenue #271
8
Alameda, CA 94501
9 Tel: (415) 869-2873
Fax: (415) 869-2873
10
Email: legal@danbalsam.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
15 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION/COMPLEX)
16
NACE REYNOLDS; ) Case No.: CGC-21-594238
17 ) Consolidated with
Plaintiff, ) CGC-21-594246
18
v. )
19 ) DECLARATION OF JACOB HARKER IN
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
20
) FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
21 Defendants. )
) Date: August 4, 2022
22
) Time: 10:00 am
23 ) Dept./Judge: 304 (Hon. Ethan Schulman)
) Action Filed: Aug. 2, 2021
24
) Trial Date: Not Set
25
26 I, Jacob Harker declare:
27 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of California and an
28 attorney of record for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds in this consolidation Action. I make this
29 Declaration based upon personal knowledge. I could and would testify competently as to
30 the matters contained in this Declaration.
31
1
HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 2. Exhibit D1 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
2 from Defendant Robin Amelia Sheehan’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories,
3 Set One, that her counsel served on me. (Sheehan’s counsel subsequently provided
4 unverified supplemental responses, but there are no material changes on the relevant points.)
5 3. Exhibit D2 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
6 from Defendant Matthew Jacob Feaver’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories,
7 Set One, that his counsel served on me. (Feaver’s counsel subsequently provided unverified
8 supplemental responses, but there are no material changes on the relevant points.)
9 4. Exhibit D3 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
10 from Defendant Sheehan & Feaver PC’s (fka Sheehan Law Group) responses to Reynolds’
11 Special Interrogatories, Set One, that its counsel served on me. (Sheehan & Feaver’s
12 counsel subsequently provided unverified supplemental responses, but there are no material
13 changes on the relevant points.)
14 5. Exhibit D4 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
15 from Defendant Robin Amelia Sheehan’s responses to Reynolds’ Requests for
16 Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for her response to Form Interrogatory
17 17.1, that her counsel served on me.
18 6. Exhibit D5 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
19 from Defendant Matthew Jacob Feaver’s responses to Reynolds’ Requests for
20 Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for his response to Form Interrogatoriy
21 17.1, that his counsel served on me.
22 7. Exhibit D6 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
23 from Defendant Sheehan & Feaver PC’s (fka Sheehan Law Group) responses to Reynolds’
24 Requests for Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for its response to Form
25 Interrogatory 17.1, that its counsel served on me.
26 8. Exhibit D7 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
27 from Defendant Brian Morgan Heit’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories, Set
28 One, that his counsel served on me.
29 9. Exhibit D8 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page
30 from Defendant Heit Law Group PC’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories,
31 Set One, that its counsel served on me.
2
HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 10. In response to the discovery I propounded, Defendants have not produced any other
2 purported Agreements between themselves and Reynolds other than the 14 Agreements
3 attached to Reynolds’ Declarations (filed concurrently) as Exhibits B1-B14.
4 11. In response to the discovery I propounded, Defendants never produced an Agreement for
5 Reynolds’ claims against Laurie Latham.
6 12. In response to the discovery I propounded, Sheehan & Feaver Defendants produced an
7 Agreement for Reynolds’ claims against Forward Leap Marketing Inc. in Los Angeles
8 County (Forward Leap #1) (see Reynolds Decl. at ¶ 15 and Ex. B14), but no Agreement for
9 Reynolds’ claims against Forward Leap Marketing Inc. in Orange County (Forward Leap
10 #2).
11 13. As of the filing of this Motion, S&F Defendants have neither informed me of any intent to
12 withdraw, nor served any Notices of Withdrawal of any of their Notices of Lien filed in
13 Social Concepts (“Fubar”), Holistic Choice (“Bluoyxn”), and Forward Leap #2.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing and
16 attachments are true and correct.
17
18 LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
19
20
Date: May 19, 2022 BY:
21
JACOB HARKER
22 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
3
HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Exhibit D1
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
ALEX A. GRAFT, SB# 239647
2 E-Mail: Alex.Graft@lewisbrisbois.com
KENDALL A. LAYNE, SB# 99859
3 E-Mail: Kendall.Layne@lewisbrisbois.com
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
4 San Francisco, California 94104-2872
Telephone: 415.362.2580
5 Facsimile: 415.434.0882
6 Attorneys for Defendants
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual;
7 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual;
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
8 professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW
GROUP PC
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, Case No. CGC-21-594238 (consolidated with
CGC-21-594246)
14 Plaintiff,
Single Assignment
15 vs. Complex Litigation Dept.
Hon. Ethan Schulman
16 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al.; Dept. 304
17 Defendants. ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE
18 REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL
NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
19
Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 2, 2021
20 Trial Date: None Set
vs.
21
BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual;
22 HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a California
professional corporation;
23 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual;
MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual;
24 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a (former)
California professional corporation;
25 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
professional corporation; and
26 DOES 1-100,
27 Defendants.
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 1
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 incorporates by this reference General Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at
2 this point. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, an answer to this
3 interrogatory and its implicit subparts would necessitate the preparation or making of a
4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, and
5 the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party
6 propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party; therefore, pursuant to section 2030.230 2
7 it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to that section and to specify the writings from
8 which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Those writings are specified as documents
9 produced in response to Request No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production to Responding Party,
10 Set 1, that have the words “Settlement Agreement” in the file name.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
12 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
13 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo
14 filed July 2, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
16 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
17 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
18 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
19 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
20 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Subject to and without
21 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
22 to facts sufficient to support a prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when
23 Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or
24 judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for legal services performed for
25 Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was retained to represent
26 Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about May 7, 2020, they both signed a Retainer
27
2
28 Code sections cited refer to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 6
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his claims against Endure
2 Health Alliance (“GetInstaHard”), Self-Upgrade Ventures, LLC (“5FirmingFruits”), Social
3 Concepts, Inc. (“Fubar”), Edge Financial, Inc. (“StopIRSDebt”) and Spark Networks, Inc.
4 (“Zoosk”); that agreement substantially complies with statutory requirements, as is apparent from
5 the face of the document, which document speaks for itself, a fully executed copy of which was
6 made available to Propounding Party to download, and provides for payment on a contingency fee
7 basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee;
8 Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced matter and
9 did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services performed had
10 value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable,
11 Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a
12 Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action on June 8, 2021.
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
14 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
15 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 20STCV23120; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Los
16 Angeles filed June 18, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
18 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
19 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
20 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
21 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
22 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that
23 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation
24 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by
25 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor
26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
27 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
28 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and to facts sufficient to support a prima facie
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 7
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in
2 the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for
3 legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was
4 retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about March 3, 2021, they
5 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his
6 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group; that agreement substantially complies with
7 statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks for
8 itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, and
9 provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the
10 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for
11 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by
12 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer
13 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be
14 paid a reasonable fee; on June 15, 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in
15 Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the
16 referenced case in Los Angeles Superior Court was consolidated.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
18 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
19 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC; Super. Ct.
20 Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
22 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
23 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
24 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
25 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
26 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that
27 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation
28 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 8
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor
2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
3 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
4 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a
5 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary
6 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be
7 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter.
8 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in the related case filed in the
9 California Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles; on or about March 3, 2021, they
10 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his
11 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group in that case; that agreement substantially complies
12 with statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks
13 for itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download,
14 and provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the
15 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; the Los Angeles case was consolidated with the Orange
16 County case; Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced
17 matter and did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services
18 performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be
19 unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; on June 15,
20 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in Orange County Superior Court Case
21 No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the referenced case in Los Angeles
22 Superior Court was consolidated.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
24 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
25 Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC (Case No. C21-00167; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Contra Costa
26 filed Feb. 8, 2021), state all facts supporting that contention.
27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
28 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 9
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
2 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
3 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
4 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that
5 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation
6 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by
7 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor
8 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
9 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
10 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a
11 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary
12 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be
13 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter.
14 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; they both
15 signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party relating to
16 emails Propounding Party received advertising Bluoxyn; that agreement substantially complies
17 with statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks
18 for itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download,
19 and provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the
20 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for
21 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by
22 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer
23 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be
24 paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action
25 on June 9, 2021.
26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
27 If it is your contention that you are owed any costs in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
28 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 10
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 DATED: February 23, 2022 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
By:
2
3 ALEX A. GRAFT
KENDALL A. LAYNE
4 Attorneys for Defendants
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual;
5 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual;
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
6
professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW
7 GROUP PC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 25
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 VERIFICATION
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 I have read the foregoing ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and know its
4 contents.
5 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my
own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to
6 those matters I believe them to be true.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
8
Executed on February 24, 2022, at San Francisco, California.
9
10
11 Robin Amelia Sheehan
Print Name of Signatory Signature
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 26
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Exhibit D2
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
ALEX A. GRAFT, SB# 239647
2 E-Mail: Alex.Graft@lewisbrisbois.com
KENDALL A. LAYNE, SB# 99859
3 E-Mail: Kendall.Layne@lewisbrisbois.com
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
4 San Francisco, California 94104-2872
Telephone: 415.362.2580
5 Facsimile: 415.434.0882
6 Attorneys for Defendants
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual;
7 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual;
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
8 professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW
GROUP PC
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, Case No. CGC-21-594238 (consolidated with
CGC-21-594246)
14 Plaintiff,
Single Assignment
15 vs. Complex Litigation Dept.
Hon. Ethan Schulman
16 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al.; Dept. 304
17 Defendants. MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE
18 REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL
NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
19
Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 2, 2021
20 Trial Date: None Set
vs.
21
BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual;
22 HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a California
professional corporation;
23 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual;
MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual;
24 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a (former)
California professional corporation;
25 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
professional corporation; and
26 DOES 1-100,
27 Defendants.
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 1
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 incorporates by this reference General Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at
2 this point. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, an answer to this
3 interrogatory and its implicit subparts would necessitate the preparation or making of a
4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, and
5 the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party
6 propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party; therefore, pursuant to section 2030.230 2
7 it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to that section and to specify the writings from
8 which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Those writings are specified as documents
9 produced in response to Request No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production to Responding Party,
10 Set 1, that have the words “Settlement Agreement” in the file name.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
12 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
13 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo
14 filed July 2, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
16 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
17 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
18 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
19 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
20 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Subject to and without
21 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
22 to facts sufficient to support a prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when
23 Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or
24 judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for legal services performed for
25 Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was retained to represent
26 Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about May 7, 2020, they both signed a Retainer
27
2
28 Code sections cited refer to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 6
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his claims against Endure
2 Health Alliance (“GetInstaHard”), Self-Upgrade Ventures, LLC (“5FirmingFruits”), Social
3 Concepts, Inc. (“Fubar”), Edge Financial, Inc. (“StopIRSDebt”) and Spark Networks, Inc.
4 (“Zoosk”); that agreement substantially complies with statutory requirements, as is apparent from
5 the face of the document, which document speaks for itself, a fully executed copy of which was
6 made available to Propounding Party to download, and provides for payment on a contingency fee
7 basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee;
8 Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced matter and
9 did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services performed had
10 value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable,
11 Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a
12 Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action on June 8, 2021.
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
14 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
15 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 20STCV23120; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Los
16 Angeles filed June 18, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
18 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
19 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
20 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
21 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
22 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that
23 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation
24 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by
25 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor
26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
27 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
28 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and to facts sufficient to support a prima facie
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 7
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in
2 the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for
3 legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was
4 retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about March 3, 2021, they
5 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his
6 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group; that agreement substantially complies with
7 statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks for
8 itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, and
9 provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the
10 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for
11 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by
12 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer
13 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be
14 paid a reasonable fee; on June 15, 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in
15 Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the
16 referenced case in Los Angeles Superior Court was consolidated.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
18 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled
19 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC; Super. Ct.
20 Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
22 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to
23 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and
24 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work
25 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General
26 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that
27 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation
28 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 8
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor
2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
3 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers
4 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a
5 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary
6 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be
7 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter.
8 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in
Preview
1 Jacob Harker (State Bar No. 261262) LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER 2 268 Bush St. #3732 ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 F I L E D Tel: (415) 624-7602 Superior Court of California, 4 County of San Francisco Fax: (415) 684-7757 5 Email: jacob@harkercounsel.com 05/19/2022 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ 6 Daniel L. Balsam (State Bar No. 260423) Deputy Clerk 7 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM 2601C Blanding Avenue #271 8 Alameda, CA 94501 9 Tel: (415) 869-2873 Fax: (415) 869-2873 10 Email: legal@danbalsam.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION/COMPLEX) 16 NACE REYNOLDS; ) Case No.: CGC-21-594238 17 ) Consolidated with Plaintiff, ) CGC-21-594246 18 v. ) 19 ) DECLARATION OF JACOB HARKER IN ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 20 ) FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 21 Defendants. ) ) Date: August 4, 2022 22 ) Time: 10:00 am 23 ) Dept./Judge: 304 (Hon. Ethan Schulman) ) Action Filed: Aug. 2, 2021 24 ) Trial Date: Not Set 25 26 I, Jacob Harker declare: 27 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of California and an 28 attorney of record for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds in this consolidation Action. I make this 29 Declaration based upon personal knowledge. I could and would testify competently as to 30 the matters contained in this Declaration. 31 1 HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 2. Exhibit D1 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 2 from Defendant Robin Amelia Sheehan’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories, 3 Set One, that her counsel served on me. (Sheehan’s counsel subsequently provided 4 unverified supplemental responses, but there are no material changes on the relevant points.) 5 3. Exhibit D2 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 6 from Defendant Matthew Jacob Feaver’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories, 7 Set One, that his counsel served on me. (Feaver’s counsel subsequently provided unverified 8 supplemental responses, but there are no material changes on the relevant points.) 9 4. Exhibit D3 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 10 from Defendant Sheehan & Feaver PC’s (fka Sheehan Law Group) responses to Reynolds’ 11 Special Interrogatories, Set One, that its counsel served on me. (Sheehan & Feaver’s 12 counsel subsequently provided unverified supplemental responses, but there are no material 13 changes on the relevant points.) 14 5. Exhibit D4 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 15 from Defendant Robin Amelia Sheehan’s responses to Reynolds’ Requests for 16 Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for her response to Form Interrogatory 17 17.1, that her counsel served on me. 18 6. Exhibit D5 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 19 from Defendant Matthew Jacob Feaver’s responses to Reynolds’ Requests for 20 Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for his response to Form Interrogatoriy 21 17.1, that his counsel served on me. 22 7. Exhibit D6 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 23 from Defendant Sheehan & Feaver PC’s (fka Sheehan Law Group) responses to Reynolds’ 24 Requests for Admission, Set Two, and the corresponding pages for its response to Form 25 Interrogatory 17.1, that its counsel served on me. 26 8. Exhibit D7 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 27 from Defendant Brian Morgan Heit’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories, Set 28 One, that his counsel served on me. 29 9. Exhibit D8 is a true and correct copy of the first page, relevant pages, and verification page 30 from Defendant Heit Law Group PC’s responses to Reynolds’ Special Interrogatories, 31 Set One, that its counsel served on me. 2 HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 10. In response to the discovery I propounded, Defendants have not produced any other 2 purported Agreements between themselves and Reynolds other than the 14 Agreements 3 attached to Reynolds’ Declarations (filed concurrently) as Exhibits B1-B14. 4 11. In response to the discovery I propounded, Defendants never produced an Agreement for 5 Reynolds’ claims against Laurie Latham. 6 12. In response to the discovery I propounded, Sheehan & Feaver Defendants produced an 7 Agreement for Reynolds’ claims against Forward Leap Marketing Inc. in Los Angeles 8 County (Forward Leap #1) (see Reynolds Decl. at ¶ 15 and Ex. B14), but no Agreement for 9 Reynolds’ claims against Forward Leap Marketing Inc. in Orange County (Forward Leap 10 #2). 11 13. As of the filing of this Motion, S&F Defendants have neither informed me of any intent to 12 withdraw, nor served any Notices of Withdrawal of any of their Notices of Lien filed in 13 Social Concepts (“Fubar”), Holistic Choice (“Bluoyxn”), and Forward Leap #2. 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing and 16 attachments are true and correct. 17 18 LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER 19 20 Date: May 19, 2022 BY: 21 JACOB HARKER 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 HARKER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Exhibit D1 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ALEX A. GRAFT, SB# 239647 2 E-Mail: Alex.Graft@lewisbrisbois.com KENDALL A. LAYNE, SB# 99859 3 E-Mail: Kendall.Layne@lewisbrisbois.com 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 4 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Telephone: 415.362.2580 5 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 6 Attorneys for Defendants ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; 7 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California 8 professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, Case No. CGC-21-594238 (consolidated with CGC-21-594246) 14 Plaintiff, Single Assignment 15 vs. Complex Litigation Dept. Hon. Ethan Schulman 16 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al.; Dept. 304 17 Defendants. ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE 18 REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 19 Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 2, 2021 20 Trial Date: None Set vs. 21 BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; 22 HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a California professional corporation; 23 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; 24 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a (former) California professional corporation; 25 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California professional corporation; and 26 DOES 1-100, 27 Defendants. 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 1 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 incorporates by this reference General Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at 2 this point. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, an answer to this 3 interrogatory and its implicit subparts would necessitate the preparation or making of a 4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, and 5 the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party 6 propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party; therefore, pursuant to section 2030.230 2 7 it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to that section and to specify the writings from 8 which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Those writings are specified as documents 9 produced in response to Request No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production to Responding Party, 10 Set 1, that have the words “Settlement Agreement” in the file name. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 12 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 13 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo 14 filed July 2, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 16 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 17 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 18 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 19 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 20 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Subject to and without 21 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 22 to facts sufficient to support a prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when 23 Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or 24 judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for legal services performed for 25 Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was retained to represent 26 Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about May 7, 2020, they both signed a Retainer 27 2 28 Code sections cited refer to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 6 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his claims against Endure 2 Health Alliance (“GetInstaHard”), Self-Upgrade Ventures, LLC (“5FirmingFruits”), Social 3 Concepts, Inc. (“Fubar”), Edge Financial, Inc. (“StopIRSDebt”) and Spark Networks, Inc. 4 (“Zoosk”); that agreement substantially complies with statutory requirements, as is apparent from 5 the face of the document, which document speaks for itself, a fully executed copy of which was 6 made available to Propounding Party to download, and provides for payment on a contingency fee 7 basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; 8 Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced matter and 9 did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services performed had 10 value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, 11 Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a 12 Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action on June 8, 2021. 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 14 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 15 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 20STCV23120; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Los 16 Angeles filed June 18, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 18 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 19 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 20 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 21 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 22 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that 23 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation 24 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by 25 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor 26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without 27 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 28 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and to facts sufficient to support a prima facie LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 7 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in 2 the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for 3 legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was 4 retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about March 3, 2021, they 5 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his 6 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group; that agreement substantially complies with 7 statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks for 8 itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, and 9 provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the 10 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for 11 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by 12 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer 13 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be 14 paid a reasonable fee; on June 15, 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in 15 Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the 16 referenced case in Los Angeles Superior Court was consolidated. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 18 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 19 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC; Super. Ct. 20 Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 22 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 23 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 24 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 25 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 26 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that 27 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation 28 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 8 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor 2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without 3 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 4 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a 5 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary 6 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be 7 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. 8 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in the related case filed in the 9 California Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles; on or about March 3, 2021, they 10 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his 11 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group in that case; that agreement substantially complies 12 with statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks 13 for itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, 14 and provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the 15 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; the Los Angeles case was consolidated with the Orange 16 County case; Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced 17 matter and did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services 18 performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be 19 unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; on June 15, 20 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in Orange County Superior Court Case 21 No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the referenced case in Los Angeles 22 Superior Court was consolidated. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 24 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 25 Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC (Case No. C21-00167; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Contra Costa 26 filed Feb. 8, 2021), state all facts supporting that contention. 27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 28 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 9 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 2 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 3 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 4 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that 5 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation 6 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by 7 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor 8 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without 9 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 10 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a 11 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary 12 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be 13 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. 14 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; they both 15 signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party relating to 16 emails Propounding Party received advertising Bluoxyn; that agreement substantially complies 17 with statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks 18 for itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, 19 and provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the 20 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for 21 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by 22 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer 23 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be 24 paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action 25 on June 9, 2021. 26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 27 If it is your contention that you are owed any costs in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 28 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 10 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 DATED: February 23, 2022 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP By: 2 3 ALEX A. GRAFT KENDALL A. LAYNE 4 Attorneys for Defendants ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; 5 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California 6 professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW 7 GROUP PC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 25 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 VERIFICATION 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 I have read the foregoing ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and know its 4 contents. 5 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to 6 those matters I believe them to be true. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 8 Executed on February 24, 2022, at San Francisco, California. 9 10 11 Robin Amelia Sheehan Print Name of Signatory Signature 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS 4879-4116-3276.1 26 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Exhibit D2 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ALEX A. GRAFT, SB# 239647 2 E-Mail: Alex.Graft@lewisbrisbois.com KENDALL A. LAYNE, SB# 99859 3 E-Mail: Kendall.Layne@lewisbrisbois.com 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 4 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Telephone: 415.362.2580 5 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 6 Attorneys for Defendants ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; 7 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California 8 professional corporation, fka SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, Case No. CGC-21-594238 (consolidated with CGC-21-594246) 14 Plaintiff, Single Assignment 15 vs. Complex Litigation Dept. Hon. Ethan Schulman 16 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al.; Dept. 304 17 Defendants. MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE 18 REYNOLDS’ SPECIAL NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 19 Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 2, 2021 20 Trial Date: None Set vs. 21 BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; 22 HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a California professional corporation; 23 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; 24 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a (former) California professional corporation; 25 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California professional corporation; and 26 DOES 1-100, 27 Defendants. 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 1 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 incorporates by this reference General Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at 2 this point. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, an answer to this 3 interrogatory and its implicit subparts would necessitate the preparation or making of a 4 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, and 5 the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party 6 propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party; therefore, pursuant to section 2030.230 2 7 it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to that section and to specify the writings from 8 which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Those writings are specified as documents 9 produced in response to Request No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production to Responding Party, 10 Set 1, that have the words “Settlement Agreement” in the file name. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 12 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 13 Reynolds v. Social Concepts, Inc. (Case No. 20-CIV-02726; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo 14 filed July 2, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 16 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 17 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 18 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 19 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 20 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Subject to and without 21 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 22 to facts sufficient to support a prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when 23 Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or 24 judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for legal services performed for 25 Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was retained to represent 26 Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about May 7, 2020, they both signed a Retainer 27 2 28 Code sections cited refer to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified. LEWIS BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 6 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his claims against Endure 2 Health Alliance (“GetInstaHard”), Self-Upgrade Ventures, LLC (“5FirmingFruits”), Social 3 Concepts, Inc. (“Fubar”), Edge Financial, Inc. (“StopIRSDebt”) and Spark Networks, Inc. 4 (“Zoosk”); that agreement substantially complies with statutory requirements, as is apparent from 5 the face of the document, which document speaks for itself, a fully executed copy of which was 6 made available to Propounding Party to download, and provides for payment on a contingency fee 7 basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; 8 Responding Party performed legal services for Propounding Party on the referenced matter and 9 did so until the representation was terminated by Propounding Party; the services performed had 10 value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, 11 Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be paid a reasonable fee; Responding Party filed a 12 Notice of Attorney’s Lien in the referenced action on June 8, 2021. 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 14 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 15 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 20STCV23120; Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Los 16 Angeles filed June 18, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 18 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 19 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 20 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 21 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 22 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that 23 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation 24 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by 25 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor 26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without 27 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 28 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and to facts sufficient to support a prima facie LEWIS BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 7 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary recovery in 2 the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be paid fees for 3 legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. Responding Party was 4 retained to represent Propounding Party in the referenced matter; on or about March 3, 2021, they 5 both signed a Retainer and Fee Agreement covering representation of Propounding Party on his 6 claims against Forward Leap Marketing Group; that agreement substantially complies with 7 statutory requirements, as is apparent from the face of the document, which document speaks for 8 itself, a fully executed copy of which was made available to Propounding Party to download, and 9 provides for payment on a contingency fee basis, or if the recovery on a claim occurs after the 10 Attorney’s discharge, for a reasonable fee; Responding Party performed legal services for 11 Propounding Party on the referenced matter and did so until the representation was terminated by 12 Propounding Party; the services performed had value, and if for any reason the subject Retainer 13 and Fee Agreement is found to be unenforceable, Responding Party is nevertheless entitled to be 14 paid a reasonable fee; on June 15, 2021, Responding Party filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in 15 Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC, the case with which the 16 referenced case in Los Angeles Superior Court was consolidated. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 18 If it is your contention that you are owed any fees in relationship to the lawsuit entitled 19 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC; Super. Ct. 20 Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020), state all facts supporting that contention. 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 22 Objection, to “state all facts” is vague and ambiguous as to whether reference is made to 23 ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, and if interpreted to refer to evidentiary facts, is overbroad and 24 burdensome to the point of oppression and impermissibly calls for disclosure of attorney work 25 product protected analysis and strategy. Responding Party incorporates by this reference General 26 Objections 1, 2 and 3 set out above as if set forth in full at this point. Objection, to the extent that 27 this interrogatory seeks information about Responding Party’s agreements with and representation 28 of Plaintiffs other than Propounding Party in the referenced action, that information is protected by LEWIS BRISBOIS 4881-1154-2033.1 8 BISGAARD & SMITH LLP MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF NACE REYNOLDS’ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 the privacy rights of those other persons and is neither relevant to the issues in this case nor 2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without 3 waiving the foregoing objections, giving the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation, that it refers 4 to Propounding Party only, not other plaintiffs, and that it refers to facts sufficient to support a 5 prima facie case, not every evidentiary fact: if and when Propounding Party obtains a monetary 6 recovery in the referenced matter by settlement or judgment, Responding Party is entitled to be 7 paid fees for legal services performed for Propounding Party on the referenced matter. 8 Responding Party was retained to represent Propounding Party in