Motion for Summary Adjudication in NACE REYNOLDS VS. ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN ET AL| Trellis.Law

On August 02, 2021 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Reynolds, Nace, and Does 1 To 10, Feaver, Matthew Jacob, Heit, Brian, Heit, Brian Morgan, Heit Law Group, Heit Law Group Pc, Sheehan & Feaver Pc, Sheehan & Feaver, Pc Fka Sheehan Law Group, Pc, Sheehan Law Group Pc, A, Sheehan, Robin, Sheehan, Robin Amelia, for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS in the District Court of San Francisco County.

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 ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
20
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
21 Defendants. ) ADJUDICATION
)
22
) Date: August 4, 2022
23 ) Time: 10:00 am
) Dept./Judge: 304 (Hon. Ethan Schulman)
24
) Action Filed: Aug. 2, 2021
25 ) Trial Date: Not Set
26
[caption only]
27
28
29
30
31

i
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii
3
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iii
4
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
5
6 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY / STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................2
A. Reynolds Signs 14 Legal Services Agreements with Defendants for 13
7
Matters ...........................................................................................................................2
8 B. The 14 Legal Services Agreements Do Not Contain Statements Regarding
Fees’ Negotiability or That They are Not Set By Law; Yet Defendants
9
Claim the Agreements are “Substantially Compliant” ..................................................3
10 C. Defendants Represent Reynolds in Two Contingency-Fee Matters Without
Written Agreements .......................................................................................................4
11
D. Reynolds Discharges Defendants in Spring of 2021 With Three
12 Underlying Actions Still Pending ..................................................................................6
E. Sheehan & Feaver Defendants Serve and File Three Notices of Attorney
13
Lien ................................................................................................................................6
14 F. Reynolds Sues Defendants for Malpractice and Declaratory Relief,
Voiding All Agreements Between Them – and the Liens Too......................................7
15
G. Sheehan & Feaver Defendants Have Not Withdrawn any of the Three
16 Notices of Lien...............................................................................................................8
17
III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................8
18
IV. ISSUES................................................................................................................................8
19
20 V. DISCUSSION .....................................................................................................................9
A. This Motion Will Completely Dispose of Two Causes of Action.................................9
21
B. All Legal Services Agreements Between Reynolds and Defendants Were
22 Voidable Because They Do Not Contain Necessary Language Required by
Section 6147. There is No Such Thing as “Substantial Compliance” ..........................9
23
C. All Legal Services Agreements Between Reynolds and Defendants are
24 Void Because Reynolds Exercised His Right to Void Them.......................................10
D. The Three Notices of Lien are Invalid Because No Written Lien
25
Agreements Exist .........................................................................................................11
26 E. This Court Should Order Sheehan & Feaver Defendants to Withdraw the
Three “Notices of Lien” at Issue Because They are Invalid........................................11
27
28 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................12
29
30
31

ii
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Cases
3
Arnall v. Superior Court,
4 190 Cal. App. 4th 360 (2d Dist. 2010)...........................................................................9, 10
Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp.,
5
99 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (1st Dist. 2002) ..............................................................................11
6 City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation,
29 Cal. App. 4th 1280 (3d Dist. 1994)...............................................................................11
7
Fergus v. Songer,
8 150 Cal. App. 4th 552 (2d Dist. 2007)...............................................................................11
Hersant v. Department of Social Services,
9
57 Cal. App. 4th 997 (4th Dist. 1997)..................................................................................8
10 Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.,
72 Cal. App. 4th 798 (1st Dist. 1999) ..................................................................................8
11
Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc.,
12 Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Orange
filed Aug. 20, 2020) ................................................................................................... passim
13
Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC,
14 Case No. C21-00167 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Contra Costa filed Feb. 8,
2021 ........................................................................................................................ passim
15
North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group Inc. v. Superior Court,
16 44 Cal. 4th 1145 (2008) .......................................................................................................8
O&C Creditors Group LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC,
17
42 Cal. App. 5th 546 (1st Dist. 2019) ............................................................................9, 10
18 Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc.,
Case No. 20-CIV-02726 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of San Mateo filed July 2,
19
2020) ........................................................................................................................ passim
20
Statutes
21
Bus. & Prof. Code § 6147...................................................................................................... passim
22 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5...........................................................................................................1
Code Civ. Proc. § 437c ....................................................................................................................8
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

iii
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 From early 2020 through spring 2021, Defendants Brian Morgan Heit (“Heit”) and Heit
3 Law Group PC1 (“Heit LG”) (collectively “Heit Defendants”), and Robin Amelia Sheehan
4 (“Sheehan”), Matthew Jacob Feaver (“Feaver”), Sheehan Law Group PC (“SLG”), and Sheehan
5 & Feaver PC2 (“S&F”) (collectively “S&F Defendants”) represented Plaintiff Nace Reynolds
6 (“Reynolds”) on a contingency fee basis in at least 15 matters related to violations of California’s
7 Anti-Spam Law, Business & Professions Code § 17529.5.
8 Some or all of Defendants prepared Legal Services Agreements (“Agreements”) for 13 of
9 these 15 contingency-fee matters. However, each and every one of the 14 Agreements for these
10 13 matters was voidable for failure to comply with Business & Professions Code § 6147
11 (“Section 6147”), subdivision (a)(4), which requires a written statement that attorneys’ fees are
12 negotiable and not set by law. Whatever nonexistent or unwritten Agreements there might have
13 been for the other two matters were also voidable because Section 6147(a) requires that
14 contingency agreements must be in writing. Reynolds gave notice to Defendants that he was
15 voiding each and every Agreement between them, pursuant to Section 6147(b). Contrary to
16 Defendants’ stated position, there is no such thing as “substantial compliance” with Section
17 6147, because the statute is strictly construed. Here, the Section 6147(a)(4) violations are
18 obvious on the face of the 14 Agreements, undisputable, and material.
19 In spring 2021, Reynolds discharged the S&F Defendants from the last three matters that
20 were still active, and substituted in current counsel Daniel Balsam and Jacob Harker. Sheehan or
21 S&F then served and filed a Notice of Lien in each of those three matters. However, the liens
22 are void because the Agreements are now void.
23 The Parties, by counsel, were unable to resolve the dispute over the Agreements and liens
24 despite discussing the matter several times, including at the last Case Management Conference
25 on April 19, 2022, when the Parties and the Court also agreed to the hearing date and time.
26 Declaration of Daniel Balsam at ¶ 13.
27 Reynolds seeks an Adjudication/Order from this Court that:
28  Each and every Agreement violates Section 6147 and was therefore voidable.
29  Reynolds has in fact voided each and every Agreement.
30
1
31 Heit LG subsequently changed its name twice.
2
SLG is the former name of S&F. For purposes of this Motion, the two are interchangeable.
1
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1  Because the Agreements are void, S&F Defendants’ liens are void too.
2  S&F Defendants must promptly file Notice of Withdrawal of Liens in those
3 three matters.
4 For the reasons set forth below, this Court should grant the Motion as to Reynolds’ First
5 and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint originally filed in Case No. CGC-21-594238.
6
7 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY / STATEMENT OF FACTS
8 A. Reynolds Signs 14 Legal Services Agreements with Defendants for 13 Matters
9 Between March 12, 2020 and March 3, 2021, Reynolds signed 14 Agreements, each one
10 involving some or all of Defendants. Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 1-14 of Reynolds’
11 Separate Statement, filed concurrently. These matters – plus two matters for which there were
12 no written Agreements, discussed in detail below – are the basis of Reynolds’ two Complaints
13 (pre-consolidation) in this Action. UMF 15-16; Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) at ¶¶ 4-5
14 and Ex. A1-A2.
15 In most of the Agreements, Defendants do not actually identify the spammer or
16 “spamvertiser” in the underlying matter, but instead the spammer’s website, brand, or product.
17 Reynolds provides Table 1 (below) to assist this Court in matching up the Agreements with the
18 underlying disputes. Table 1 indicates for each matter the corresponding counsel, agreement
19 name, exhibit number, whether there is a lien, and if so, the exhibit number.
20
21 Matter Agreement Name/ Lien Claimed/
22 Exhibit No. Exhibit No.
Reynolds v. eHarmony Inc. [Heit LG] eHarmony, Ex. B1
23 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. [Heit LG] Everest Tax Relief,
24 #1 (Los Angeles County) Ex. B2
Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. [S&F] Forward Leap
25 #1 (Los Angeles County) Marketing Inc., Ex. B14
26 Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. NONE S&F, Ex. C3
#2 (Orange County)
27
Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc. [Heit LG] Fubar, Ex. B3
28 Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc. [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10 Sheehan, Ex. C1
29 Holden v. Fluent Inc. [Heit LG] Fluent, Ex. B4
Table 1 continues on the next page
30
31

2
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Matter Agreement Name/ Lien Claimed/
2 Exhibit No. Exhibit No.
Fontes v. Endure Health Alliance LLC [Heit LG] GetInstaHard,
3 Ex. B5
4 Fontes v. Endure Health Alliance LLC [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10
Grant v. Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC #1 [Heit LG] 5FirmingFruits,
5 Ex. B6
6 Grant v. Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC #1 [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10
Grant v. Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC #2 [Heit LG] 5FirmingFruits,
7
Ex. B6
8 Grant v. Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC #2 [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10
9 Reynolds v. Edge Financial Inc. [Heit LG] Stop IRS Debt,
Ex. B7
10 Reynolds v. Edge Financial Inc. [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10
11 Reynolds v. Spark Networks Inc. [Heit LG] Zoosk, Ex. B8
Reynolds v. Spark Networks Inc. [Sheehan] 5 Case, Ex. B10
12
Reynolds v. Clickbooth.com LLC [Heit LG] Clickbooth, Ex. B9
13 Fontes v. Freedom Financial Network [Sheehan] Greenwise
LLC Financial Solutions LLC,
14
Ex. B11
15 One Technologies LLC (no lawsuit) [Sheehan] One Technologies
16 LLC, Ex. B12
Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC [S&F] Bluoxyn, Ex. B13 S&F, Ex. C2
17 Love v. Laurie Latham NONE
18 Table 1
19
B. The 14 Legal Services Agreements Do Not Contain Statements Regarding Fees’
20
Negotiability or That They are Not Set By Law; Yet Defendants Claim the
21 Agreements are “Substantially Compliant”
22 On their faces, the 14 Agreements do not contain the written statement, required by
23 Section 6147(a)(4) for contingency-fee representation, that the attorney’s fee is not set by law
24 but is negotiable between attorney and client. UMF 43-56. Defendants have not produced any
25 purported Agreements between themselves and Reynolds other than the 14 Agreements
26 specifically identified in this Motion and attached to Reynolds’ Declaration (filed concurrently).
27 UMF 57.
28 Throughout their responses to Reynolds’ written discovery, Defendants notably never
29 claim that their Agreements comport with the language of Section 6147, but instead insist that
30
31

3
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 the Agreements “substantially compl[y] with statutory requirements” or “substantially compl[y]
2 with the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6147.”3 UMF 58.
3 C. Defendants Represent Reynolds in Two Contingency-Fee Matters Without Written
Agreements
4
As indicated in Table 1, above, there were two contingency matters for which Reynolds
5
never had a written agreement with Defendants.
6
1. Laurie Latham
7
Reynolds does not recall ever signing an Agreement for Love v. Laurie Latham, and Heit
8
Defendants failed to produce a fee agreement for Love v. Laurie Latham in response to
9
Reynolds’ discovery. UMF 17-18. There is no evidence that there ever was an Agreement for
10
Laurie Latham. The nonexistent or unwritten Laurie Latham Agreement violates Section
11
6147(a) and necessarily lacks the required written statement regarding fees’ negotiability
12
pursuant to Section 6147(a)(4), and it was therefore voidable pursuant to Section 6147(b).
13
14
15
3
Sheehan Responses: Harker Decl. at ¶ 2 and Ex. D1 (response to SROG No. 3 (Social
16
Concepts and also addressing Endure Health Alliance LLC, Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC, Edge
17 Financial Inc., and Spark Networks Inc.) at 7:4, response to SROG No. 4 (Forward Leap #1) at
8:6-7, response to SROG No. 6 (Holistic Choice) at 10:16-17). Harker Decl. at ¶ 5 and Ex. D4
18
(denial of RFA No. 17 (Freedom Financial Network LLC) at 3:27-4:4 and response to FROG
19 17.1 at 9:5-6).
Feaver Responses: Harker Decl. at ¶ 3 and Ex. D2 (response to SROG No. 3 (Social Concepts
20
and also addressing Endure Health Alliance LLC, Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC, Edge Financial
21 Inc., and Spark Networks Inc.) at 7:4, response to SROG No. 4 (Forward Leap #1) at 8:6-7,
response to SROG No. 6 (Holistic Choice) at 10:16-17). Harker Decl. at ¶ 6 and Ex. D5 (denial
22
of RFA No. 17 (Freedom Financial Network LLC) at 3:27-4:4 and response to FROG 17.1 at
23 9:5-6).
S&F Responses: Harker Decl. at ¶ 4 and Ex. D3 (response to SROG No. 3 (Social Concepts and
24
also addressing Endure Health Alliance LLC, Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC, Edge Financial Inc.,
25 and Spark Networks Inc.) at 7:11, response to SROG No. 4 (Forward Leap #1) at 8:13-14,
response to SROG No. 6 (Holistic Choice) at 10:24-25). Harker Decl. at ¶ 7 and Ex. D6 (denial
26
of RFA No. 17 (Freedom Financial Network LLC) at 4:1-6 and response to FROG 17.1 at 9:6-7).
27 Heit Responses: Harker Decl. at ¶ 8 and Ex. D7 (response to SROG No. 3 (eHarmony) at 6:15-
16, response to SROG No. 4 (Forward Leap #1) at 7:19-20, response to SROG No. 5 (Fluent) at
28
8:24-25, response to SROG No. 7 (Laurie Latham) at 11:5-6, response to SROG No. 8
29 (Clickbooth) at 12:9-10).
Heit LG Responses: Harker Decl. at ¶ 9 and Ex. D8 (response to SROG No. 3 (eHarmony) at
30
6:15-16, response to SROG No. 4 (Forward Leap #1) at 7:19-20, response to SROG No. 5
31 (Fluent) at 8:24-25, response to SROG No. 7 (Laurie Latham) at 11:5-6, response to SROG No.
8 (Clickbooth) at 12:9-10).
4
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 2. Forward Leap #2 (Orange County)
2 On June 18, 2020, Heit Defendants filed Forward Leap #1 in Los Angeles County after
3 Reynolds signed their Agreement to represent him against “Everest Tax Relief” (a dba of
4 Forward Leap Marketing Inc.). UMF 29. On August 20, 2020, S&F Defendants filed Forward
5 Leap #2 in Orange County on behalf of Reynolds (and others). UMF 30. Forward Leap #2
6 included the same claims by Reynolds as did Forward Leap #1.
7 Reynolds does not recall ever signing an Agreement for Forward Leap #2 in Orange
8 County. UMF 19. Prior to filing this Action, Reynolds asked S&F Defendants’ former counsel,
9 Jean Cha, for the complete Forward Leap #2 (Orange County) case file. Cha produced some
10 documents, but no fee agreement. Reynolds then specifically asked for the Agreement, but Cha
11 still failed to produce it. UMF 20.
12 In this Action, Reynolds propounded discovery to each of the S&F Defendants related to
13 the existence (or nonexistence) of an Agreement for Forward Leap #2 (Orange). S&F
14 Defendants produced an Agreement that was facially limited to representing Reynolds in the
15 already-filed Forward Leap #1 (Los Angeles) lawsuit, but they never produced an Agreement for
16 Forward Leap #2 (Orange). UMF 21-22.
17 In their verified discovery responses4 to Special Interrogatory No. 5, which expressly
18 asks about an Agreement for Forward Leap #2 (Orange), S&F Defendants claim that Reynolds
19 retained them in Forward Leap #1 (Los Angeles). S&F Defendants go on to aver that Forward
20 Leap #1 (Los Angeles) and Forward Leap #2 (Orange) are “related” cases. S&F Defendants
21 also claim that Forward Leap #1 (Los Angeles) and Forward Leap #2 (Orange) were
22 “consolidated.” UMF 23.
23 However, in marked contradiction to S&F Defendants’ sworn discovery responses: a) No
24 one ever filed a Notice of Related Case in either Forward Leap action, UMF 24; b) No one ever
25 transferred either action to the other county, UMF 25-26; and c) No one even attempted to, let
26 alone succeeded at, consolidating the two actions, UMF 27-28. Indeed, the two Forward Leap
27 actions could not have been consolidated, because they were never in the same county. Clearly,
28 S&F Defendants perjured themselves in their discovery responses by alleging that Forward Leap
29
4
Each of the S&F Defendants subsequently provided unverified supplemental responses which
30
have no legal weight; regardless, the supplemental responses make the same claims that the two
31 Forward Leap actions were related and consolidated and that the Agreement is “substantially
compliant.”
5
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 #1 (Los Angeles) and Forward Leap #2 (Orange) were “consolidated,” in an attempt to hide their
2 failure to obtain a written Agreement for Forward Leap #2 (Orange). In fact, S&F Defendants
3 were representing Reynolds in Forward Leap #2 (Orange) on a contingency basis beginning with
4 the filing on August 20, 2020, even though they never had a written Agreement with Reynolds
5 for his claims against Forward Leap until March 3, 2021, and even that Agreement was
6 expressly limited to Forward Leap #1 (Los Angeles). UMF 21, 22, 30. In fact, after S&F
7 Defendants obtained Reynolds’ signature on their Agreement for Forward Leap #1 (Los
8 Angeles) on March 3, 2021, they substituted into the case on March 25, 2021 – and then
9 dismissed the case just four days later. UMF 22, 29, 31. According to the Register of Actions,
10 S&F Defendants’ only action in Forward Leap #1 was dismissing the case.
11 The nonexistent or unwritten Forward Leap #2 Agreement violates Section 6147(a) and
12 necessarily lacks the required written statement regarding fees’ negotiability pursuant to Section
13 6147(a)(4), and it was therefore voidable pursuant to Section 6147(b).
14 D. Reynolds Discharges Defendants in Spring of 2021 With Three Underlying Actions
Still Pending
15
As of spring 2021, most of the underlying lawsuits had been dismissed, either by
16
settlement or because Defendants lost a dispositive motion. However, S&F Defendants still
17
represented Reynolds in three active lawsuits:
18
19  Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc., Case No. 20-CIV-02726 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of

20 San Mateo filed July 2, 2020) (“Social Concepts”). UMF 59.

21  Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC, Case No. C21-00167 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty.

22 of Contra Costa filed Feb. 8, 2021) (“Holistic Choice”). UMF 59.

23  Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc., Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-

24 CJC (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020) (“Forward Leap #2”).

25 UMF 59.

26 E. Sheehan & Feaver Defendants Serve and File Three Notices of Attorney Lien

27 Reynolds substituted Defendants out as counsel in Social Concepts (“Fubar”), Holistic

28 Choice (“Bluoxyn”), and Forward Leap #2 in spring 2021. UMF 59. Sheehan (individually) or

29 S&F then served and filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien in each of those three cases, as follows:

30  Social Concepts – Notice of Lien filed June 8, 2021. UMF 60; RJN at ¶ 6 and
31 Ex. C1.

6
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1  Holistic Choice – Notice of Lien filed June 9, 2021. UMF 61; RJN at ¶ 7 and
2 Ex. C2.
3  Forward Leap #2 – Notice of Lien filed June 15, 2021. UMF 62; RJN at ¶ 8 and
4 Ex. C3.
5 F. Reynolds Sues Defendants for Malpractice and Declaratory Relief, Voiding All
6 Agreements Between Them – and the Liens Too

7 On August 2, 2021, Reynolds filed two actions (subsequently consolidated) against

8 Defendants for 13 causes of action. UMF 32-33; RJN at ¶¶ 4-5 and Ex. A1-A2 (two Complaints,

9 pre-consolidation).

10 Reynolds alleges that Defendants committed malpractice and various other torts with

11 respect to each and every one of the anti-spam matters that Defendants handled on his behalf,

12 including, but not limited to, the 15 matters referenced above. UMF 33; RJN at ¶ 5 and Ex. A2.

13 Reynolds brings a cause of action for declaratory relief that the Agreements were

14 voidable for failure to comply with Section 6147. UMF 32; RJN at ¶ 4 and Ex. A1 (at ¶¶ 2, 20-

15 28, 30-38, 61-64). Reynolds stated in his Complaint (in Case No. CGC-21-594238) that he

16 voided all fee agreements between him and Defendants pursuant to Section 6147(b), having

17 given notice by virtue of filing and serving the Complaint. UMF 32; RJN at ¶ 4 and Ex. A1 (at

18 ¶¶ 3, 29, 39, 63).

19 Reynolds served one or both of the two pre-consolidation Complaints on each of

20 Defendants Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit individually as well as SLG, S&F, and Heit LG. UMF

21 34-42. (Also, by virtue of filing the instant Motion, Reynolds gives additional notice to

22 Defendants that he is voiding all Agreements between them.)

23 Reynolds brings a separate cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief as to the

24 liens. UMF 63; RJN at ¶ 4 and Ex. A1 (at ¶¶ 4, 43, 49, 54, 56-59, 66-68). S&F Defendants’

25 liens in Social Concepts (“Fubar”) and Holistic Choice (“Bluoxyn”) are invalid because – as

26 discussed above – the written contingency Agreements for those lawsuits are void. UMF 64-65;

27 RJN at ¶¶ 6-7 and Ex. C1-C2. And the lien in Forward Leap #2 is void because there never was

28 a written contingency Agreement for that lawsuit in the first place. Reynolds does not recall

29 signing such an Agreement, and S&F Defendants failed to produce an Agreement for Forward

30 Leap #2 (Orange County), either in response to Reynolds’ pre-filing demands, or to Reynolds’

31 written discovery. UMF 66-68; RJN at ¶ 8 and Ex. C3.

7
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 On December 17, 2021, S&F Defendants made a general appearance by filing a Motion
2 to Strike Reynolds’ Complaint. On February 2, 2022, Heit Defendants made a general
3 appearance by filing an Answer. See Register of Actions.
4 G. Sheehan & Feaver Defendants Have Not Withdrawn any of the Three Notices of Lien
5 S&F Defendants have not withdrawn any of their Notices of Lien filed in Social
6 Concepts (“Fubar”), Holistic Choice (“Bluoyxn”), and Forward Leap #2. UMF 69. This failure
7 to withdraw the liens is especially egregious in Forward Leap #2, where the S&F Defendants
8 never had a written Agreement in the first place. UMF 66-68.
9
10 III. LEGAL STANDARD
11 A plaintiff may move for summary judgment, 60 days after the defendant’s general
12 appearance, if the plaintiff contends that there is no defense to the action. The plaintiff must
13 serve notice at least 75 days before the hearing date. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a).
14 A motion for summary adjudication must completely dispose of a cause of action. Code
15 Civ. Proc. § 437c(f); North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group Inc. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.
16 4th 1145, 1150, 1161-62 (2008).
17 Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue as to any material
18 fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c);
19 Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 4th 798, 805 (1st Dist. 1999). To
20 avoid summary judgment, a defendant must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” Hersant
21 v. Department of Social Services, 57 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1004-1005 (4th Dist. 1997).
22
23 IV. ISSUES
24 1. Legal Services Agreements that fail to state that the fee is not set by law but is negotiable
25 between attorney and client violate Business & Professions Code § 6147(a)(4).
26 2. Legal Services Agreements for contingency fee representation that are not in writing
27 violate Section 6147(a).
28 3. Notice of voiding a Legal Services Agreement under Section 6147(b) renders such an
29 agreement void. Section 6147 is strictly construed; there is no such thing as “substantial
30 compliance.”
31

8
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 4. An attorney can only obtain a lien on their client’s recovery by a written agreement. If a
2 Legal Services Agreement is void, then the lien must be void too.
3 5. A court has the authority to order an attorney to withdraw an invalid Notice of Lien.
4
5 V. DISCUSSION
6 A. This Motion Will Completely Dispose of Two Causes of Action
7 By this Motion, Reynolds requests an Order that will completely dispose of the First
8 Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief (as to the Agreements) and the Second Cause of Action
9 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (as to the liens), in the Complaint originally filed in Case
10 No. 594238. RJN at ¶ 4 and Ex. A1.
11 B. All Legal Services Agreements Between Reynolds and Defendants Were Voidable
Because They Do Not Contain Necessary Language Required by Section 6147. There
12
is No Such Thing as “Substantial Compliance”
13
Failure to comply with any provision of Business & Professions Code § 6147 renders a
14
contingency fee agreement voidable at the client’s option. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6147(b).
15
Section 6147(a)(4) provides that contingency fee agreements must contain a statement
16
that “the fee is not set by law but is negotiable between attorney and client.” All 14 Agreements
17
listed above facially – and fatally – lack that provision. UMF 1-14. And there are no written
18
agreements at all for the Laurie Latham and Forward Leap #2 actions, which violates Section
19
6147(a). UMF 15-16.
20
Section 6147 is strictly construed, and failure to include the provision about the
21
negotiability of fees, or failure to provide a fully-signed copy of a contingency fee agreement at
22
the time the parties enter into an agreement, renders the fee agreement voidable under Section
23
6147(b). O&C Creditors Group LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, 42 Cal. App. 5th 546,
24
574-576 (1st Dist. 2019); Arnall v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. App. 4th 360, 369 (2d Dist. 2010)
25
(citing multiple cases).
26
Defendants de facto admit that their Agreements violate Section 6147 by weakly alleging
27
in their discovery responses that the Agreements “substantially complied” with Section 6147.
28
UMF 58 (see footnote 3, above, for pin cites). If the Agreements actually complied with Section
29
6147, Defendants would simply say so.
30
O&C Creditors Group flatly rejected the attorney-defendants’ argument that their fee
31
agreements achieved the legislative goal of protecting clients and thus “substantially complied”

9
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 with Section 6147. 42 Cal. App. 5th at 575. The court held that Section 6147 is “unambiguous”
2 and the attorney-defendants’ argument was directly contrary to the plain language of the statute.
3 Id. Indeed, the attorney-defendants’ “substantial compliance” argument would violate “the
4 preeminent canon of statutory interpretation [which] requires [a court] to presume that the
5 legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says.” Id. Adopting the
6 attorney-defendants’ “substantial compliance” argument would render part of Section 6147
7 superfluous; such an interpretation should be avoided. Id. In rejecting the attorney-defendants’
8 “substantial compliance” argument, O&C Creditors Group stated that “Had the Legislature
9 intended for substantial compliance to be sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements it could
10 and would have said so.” Id. at 576. The court refused to “insert missing terms into the statute
11 or adopt an interpretation precluded by the plain [statutory] language.” Id.
12 Since the 14 Agreements at issue undisputedly do not comply with Section 6147(a)(4),
13 they were voidable when Reynolds signed them. UMF 1-14. As for any nonexistent or
14 unwritten contingency Agreements in Laurie Latham and Forward Leap #2, they also fail to
15 comply with Section 6147(a) and thus were voidable too. UMF 17-21.
16 C. All Legal Services Agreements Between Reynolds and Defendants are Void Because
Reynolds Exercised His Right to Void Them
17
As discussed above, Section 6147(b) makes contingency fee Agreements that violate any
18
provision of Section 6147 – as do all 14 Agreements identified in this Motion, and the two
19
matters for which there were never written Agreements – voidable at the option of the client.5
20
Reynolds notified Defendants that he was exercising his right to void all of the
21
Agreements between himself and Defendants by virtue of filing and serving the declaratory relief
22
Complaint (594238). UMF 32-42.
23
But, if that notice by means of filing and serving the Complaint were somehow
24
insufficient, Reynolds hereby exercises his right to void those Agreements now by virtue of
25
filing and serving the instant Motion. Even if Defendants were to argue that this notice is
26
untimely and therefore not effective, that argument would fail. O&C Creditors rejected the
27
attorney-defendants’ arguments that: a) The plaintiff did not attempt to void the agreement until
28
it was too late, and b) Section 6147 has a timeliness component. 42 Cal. App. 5th at 576.
29
30 5
Although Section 6147(b) uses the word “plaintiff,” it more broadly means “client.” Arnall,
31 190 Cal. App. 4th at 368. Regardless, Reynolds was a plaintiff in all of the underlying lawsuits,
and he was the Defendants’ client at the time.
10
MEMO. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 D. The Three Notices of Lien are Invalid Because No Written Lien Agreements Exist
2 Unlike other liens, an attorney’s lien is not created by the mere fact that an attorney has
3 performed services in a case. Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1172
4 (1st Dist. 2002). Rather, an attorney’s lien is created only by an attorney fee contract with an
5 express provision regarding the lien or by implication in a retainer agreement that provides the
6 attorney will be paid for services rendered from the judgment itself. Id.
7 Here, Reynolds has voided all Agreements between himself and Defendants, including
8 the written Sheehan Agreement including Social Concepts (“Fubar”), the written S&F
9 Agreement for Holistic Choice (“Bluoxyn”), and the nonexistent or unwritten S&F Agreement
10 for Forward Leap #2. UMF 32-42, 64-68. According to the S&F Defendants, the only bases for
11 their purported liens in Social Concepts, Holistic Choice, and Forward Leap #2 were the
12 Agreements, which Reynolds has voided. Therefore, Defendants have no bases for liens in these
13 three matters because parties to a voided agreement have no rights under the voided agreement.
14 Fergus v. Songer, 150 Cal. App. 4th 552, 573 (2d Dist. 2007) (“A void contract is no contract at
15 all; it binds no one and is a mere nullity. Consequently, such a contract cannot be enforced.”
16 (Citations omitted.)).
17 Accordingly, since S&F Defendants have not and cannot identify any valid written
18 agreement creating a lien in Social Concepts (“Fubar”), Holistic Choice (“Bluxoyxn”), and
19 Forward Leap #2 – either the Agreements or any other documents – their Notices of Liens in
20 those cases are all improper. In reality, the S&F Defendants do not have any liens on

Case Info

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 19, 2022

Case Filing Date

August 02, 2021

County

Parties

BALSAM, DANIEL L. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BALSAM, DANIEL L. Attorney for the Plaintiff
DOES 1 TO 10 Defendant
FEAVER, MATTHEW JACOB Defendant
FICKEL, CONNIE M. Attorney for the Defendant
GRAFT, ALEX Attorney for the Defendant
HARKER, JACOB Attorney
HARKER, JACOB Attorney for the Plaintiff
HEIT, BRIAN Defendant
HEIT, BRIAN MORGAN Defendant
HEIT, BRIAN MORGAN Defendant (consolidated Case)
HEIT LAW GROUP Defendant
HEIT LAW GROUP PC Defendant
HEIT LAW GROUP PC Defendant (consolidated Case)
LAYNE, KENDALL ALEXANDER Attorney for the Defendant
REYNOLDS, NACE Plaintiff
REYNOLDS, NACE Plaintiff (consolidated Case)
SASAKI, ED Attorney for the Defendant
SCHOWE, TIMOTHY M. Attorney for the Defendant
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC Defendant
SHEEHAN & FEAVER, PC FKA SHEEHAN LAW GROUP, PC Defendant
SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, A(FORMER)CALIFORNIA Defendant
SHEEHAN, ROBIN Defendant
SHEEHAN, ROBIN AMELIA Defendant
STEPANYAN, HAKOP Attorney for the Defendant
Jean Cha Attorneys for Defendants
Alex Graft Attorney
Daniel Alef Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Antoinette Marino Attorneys for Defendants
Phillip Viramontes Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: NACE REYNOLDS VS. ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties