Order: NACE REYNOLDS VS. ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Co me It DH FF Ww NY

mw oN ON rn rere
BRRERREBRRRSERSBWIBRFEBERTSERAS

 

 

D

San Francisco County Sunerior Court

 

APR 20 2022
we OF ‘THE COURT
EE
C= Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT 304
NACE REYNOLDS, an individual, Case No. CGC-21-594238 (consolidated with
No. CGC-21-594246)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER
AND MOTION TO STRIKE HEIT
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al., DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
Defendants.

 

NACE REYNOLDS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; HEIT
LAW GROUP PC, a California professional
corporation; ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an
individual; MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an
individual; SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a
(former) California professional corporation;
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
professional corporation; and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

 

 

-1-
Reynolds v, Sheehan, et al., CGC-21-594238 Order on Plaintiff's Demurrer to Answeroem NY DH FF BW YN

NY WY NY NY NY ND — — ee
BRRREBBRBSESWIABDEBHRES

 

 

Plaintiff's demurrer and motion to strike the answer filed by Defendants Brian Morgan Heit and
Heit Law Group PC (“Heit Defendants”) came on regularly for hearing before the Court on April 19,
2022. All parties appeared through their counsel of record. The hearing was not reported. All parties
stipulated to the Court’s tentative ruling, which was circulated in writing in advance of the hearing, and
which is hereby adopted. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants’ answer is

granted with leave to amend, and the demurrer is off calendar as moot.

DISCUSSION

These two consolidated actions arise out of Defendant law firms’ and attorneys’ representation of
Plaintiff Nace Reynolds in actions brought under Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, which
makes it unlawful to advertise in commercial e-mails under specified circumstances. In Reynolds v.
Sheehan, et al., Case No. CGC-21-594238, filed on August 2, 2021, Plaintiff alleges that he entered into
multiple written contingency fee agreements with Defendants for legal services. He seeks declaratory
relief that: (1) the contingency fee agreements are void and unenforceable; and (2) notices of attomey’s
liens filed by Defendants in three separate lawsuits in which they formerly represented Plaintiff prior to
being discharged are void. In Reynolds v. Heit, et al., Case No. CGC-21-594246, filed on the same day,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed legal malpractice in their representation of him, and seeks to
state causes of action for professional negligence, conversion, fraud or deceit in concealment, accounting,
common counts, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

On February 22, 2022, the Heit Defendants filed an answer to the complaint, inaccurately
denominated as “The Heit Defendants’ Answer to Complaint for Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process
and Punitive Damages.” The answer consists of a general denial and twenty-six affirmative defenses. On
March 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a demurrer and motion to strike the answer. Those motions were
supported, as required, by a declaration of Plaintiff's counsel reciting that he had met and conferred with
Defendants’ prior counsel by telephone regarding asserted deficiencies in the answer’s affirmative
defenses, but were unable to resolve the dispute. (Balsam Decl. { 3.) It also recited that at a February 25,
2022 case management conference, Defendants’ then-counsel agreed to serve and file an amended
answer. In a joint case management statement filed on April 6, 2022, Defendants similarly state, “Heit

Defendants are filing an Amended Answer, mooting Reynolds’ Demurrer to and Motion to Strike their

-2-
Reynolds v. Sheehan, et al., CGC-21-594238 Order on Plaintiff's Demurrer to Answerom YN DAW FB BW N

Row wy oe oe ee
BNSFRREBSRESSESEDWTFBDRESERSCS

original Answer.” To date, however, Defendants have not filed an amended answer, and the deadline for
them to do so has long since passed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 472(a) [A party may amend its pleading
once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or
after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the
amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or
motion to strike.”|; Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) [opposition must be filed and served at least nine court
days before the hearing].) Accordingly, the motion to strike the answer with leave to amend must be

granted. Plaintiff's demurrer to the answer is off calendar as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April (f 2022 oh)

Ethan P. Schulman
Judge of the Superior Court

-3-

 

 

 

Reynolds v. Sheehan, et al., CGC-21-594238 Order on Plaintiffs Demurrer to AnswerCERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
(CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.251)

I, Ericka Larnauti, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that I am not a party to the within action.

On April 20, 2022, I electronically served the attached document via File & ServeXpress
on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress

website.

Dated: April 20, 2022

T. Michael Yuen, Clerk

wy CL >

Ericka Larnauti, Deputy Clerk