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 04/05/2022
Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
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 ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; ) SHEEHAN & FEAVER DEFENDANTS’
20
) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
21 Defendants. ) COMPLAINT
)
22
) Date: April 19, 2022
23 And Related Action ) Time: 11:00 am
) Dept./Judge: 304 (Hon. Ethan Schulman)
24
) Action Filed: Aug. 2, 2021
25 ) Trial Date: Not Set
26
I. INTRODUCTION / PROCEDURAL HISTORY
27
On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff Nace Reynolds (“Reynolds”) filed two subsequently-
28
consolidated actions against Defendants Robin Amelia Sheehan, Matthew Jacob Feaver, Sheehan
29
Law Group PC, and Sheehan & Feaver PC (collectively “S&F Defendants”), and Defendants
30
Brian Morgan Heit and Heit Law Group PC (collectively “Heit Defendants”), for declaratory and
31
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 injunctive relief related to fee agreements and liens, professional negligence, conversion, fraud
2 or deceit in concealment, accounting, common counts, unfair competition, and unjust
3 enrichment. See Register of Actions.
4 Reynolds alleges that Defendants gave him facially improper contingency fee agreements
5 (and Sheehan admitted as much1), took legal advice from a non-attorney, engaged in malpractice,
6 abandoned his claims, intentionally deceived him and failed to keep him informed about his
7 cases, and converted his client files which were his property. See Complaints, generally.
8 Reynolds is personally incurring attorneys’ fees to litigate this matter, and Reynolds believes
9 that his lawsuit will reduce the likelihood of Defendants continuing their woefully
10 inadequate practices that have the potential to harm a large number of Californians.
11 Accordingly, in ¶ 312 of the Complaint filed in Case No. 594246 (pre-consolidation), Reynolds
12 prayed for attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 (“Section 1021.5”).
13 S&F Defendants moved to strike Paragraph 312 because Reynolds supposedly does not
14 allege an important public right, how a judgment in Reynolds’ favor would confer a significant
15 benefit to the general public, or that the financial burden on Reynolds is disproportionate to his
16 individual stake in the matter. Motion MPA at 2:20-23, 4:26-6:6. Also, although S&F
17 Defendants failed to mention their reasons in their Notice of Motion, Reynolds supposedly
18 cannot reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief merely
19 because, even assuming Reynolds delivers a significant benefit to a large group of people by this
20 Action, he would still have to file a subsequent motion to recover those attorneys’ fees. Motion
21 MPA at 3:10-4:25. Reynolds refers to this argument as the “subsequent motion” theory.
22 Reynolds’ Complaint is adequately-pled under California’s liberal pleading standard. See
23 Code Civ. Proc. §§ 4, 452. Indeed, in a related matter (Mendez v. Sheehan et al, Case No. CGC-
24 21-594247), another San Francisco court already denied Sheehan’s motion to strike
25 plaintiff’s similar claims for attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5. See Request for Judicial
26 Notice at ¶¶ 4-7 and Ex. A-D. This Court should do the same.
27
28
29
1
In Mendez v. Sheehan et al, a related case currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court,
30
Sheehan admitted that Defendants’ contingency fee agreements violated Business & Professions
31 Code § 6147 and that their unlawful fee agreements constituted misconduct. See RJN at ¶ 4 and
Ex. A (Motion to Strike at 4:21-22, 9:14-16, and 12:22).
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 A. Bases for Attorneys’ Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5
3 Section 1021.5 states that a court may award attorneys’ fees to a party that causes a
4 significant benefit (pecuniary or non-pecuniary) to be conferred on the general public or a large
5 class of persons, where the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement makes a fees
6 award appropriate, and where, in the interest of justice, the attorneys’ fees should not be paid out
7 of any recovery to the plaintiff. Indeed, the Legislature wants Californians to sue over their
8 private claims where that litigation can benefit large numbers of people.
9 The fundamental objective of the private attorney general concept as codified in
section 1021.5 is to encourage suits effectuating a strong public policy by
10
awarding substantial attorneys’ fees to those who successfully bring such suits
11 and thereby bring about benefits to a large group of citizens. [ ] The doctrine rests
on the recognition that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the
12
effectuation of public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions,
13 and without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys’ fees, private
actions to enforce such important public policies will be impracticable.
14
15 Daniels v. McKinney, 146 Cal. App. 3d 42, 49 (5th Dist. 1983) (emphasis in original) (citation
16 omitted).
17 B. S&F Defendants’ Notice of Motion Failed to Include the Subsequent Motion Theory
18 A notice of motion must state all grounds upon which the moving party is bringing that
19 motion. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1010 and Rule of Court 3.1110(a).
20 Here, S&F Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not include any argument that referring
21 to Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief is improper and subject to
22 a motion to strike merely because Reynolds would have to bring a subsequent motion to recover
23 such fees. For that reason alone, this Court could deny S&F Defendants’ Motion.
24 C. S&F Defendants are Wrong on the Law as to the Subsequent Motion Theory
25 Notwithstanding S&F Defendants’ failure to include the subsequent motion theory in
26 their Notice of Motion, S&F Defendants nevertheless include a lengthy argument in the Motion
27 MPA at 3:10-4:25 that boils down to the premise that simply because Section 1021.5 begins with
28 “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees [ ],” it is improper for Reynolds to even
29 reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in his Prayer for Relief. But S&F Defendants offer no
30 authority for this novel theory.
31
3
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 Indeed, there is case law to the contrary. In Snatchko v. Westfield LLC, the court of
2 appeal held, without ruling on the merits of awarding Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees, that “[T]he
3 trial court erred in striking Snatchko’s prayer for attorney fees [under Section 1021.5] based on a
4 failure to adequately plead their basis.” 187 Cal. App. 4th 469, 497 (3d Dist. 2010).
5 Reynolds fully understands and agrees that the plain language of Section 1021.5 requires
6 him to bring a subsequent motion to recover attorneys’ fees. But that does not mean that it is
7 improper to reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief,
8 such that the reference is not drawn and filed in conformity with California law and should be
9 stricken. Indeed, referencing Section 1021.5 in the Complaint gives Defendants (and their
10 malpractice insurance carriers) fair notice that Reynolds is in fact seeking attorneys’ fees.
11 Moreover, if Reynolds did not reference Section 1021.5 up front in the Complaint,
12 Defendants might conceivably argue, in opposition to that subsequent motion, that their “due
13 process” rights were somehow violated because they were not previously on notice that
14 Reynolds is seeking Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees.
15 D. Reynolds Sufficiently Pled Facts to Support Section 1021.5 Attorneys’ Fees
16 In addition to the subsequent motion theory, S&F Defendants also argue that Reynolds
17 has not alleged sufficient facts to support Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees because, even if
18 Reynolds prevails, he will not have enforced an important right affecting a large class of persons,
19 etc. Motion MPA at 4:26-28 and 6:2-6. S&F Defendants include a full page single-spaced block
20 quote on page 5 of their Motion, but that quote from Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v.
21 Board of Trustees, 89 Cal. App. 3d 274, 292-293 (1979) adds little to their argument to strike,
22 because: a) Defendants fail to provide any of the underlying facts or allegations from Residents
23 Ad Hoc Stadium Committee and compare/contrast the instant facts and allegations; b) The quote
24 seems to involve a particular plaintiff who did not prevail nevertheless still trying to claim fees
25 under Section 1021.5; and c) The plaintiff apparently sought recovery of attorneys’ fees under
26 several legal theories (common fund, vexatious litigant) that have no relevance to this dispute.
27 Regardless, as cited above, even if Reynolds did not adequately plead a basis for Section
28 1021.5 attorneys’ fees, that is not grounds to strike it from the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief.
29 Snatchko, 187 Cal. App. 4th at 497.
30 S&F Defendants also fail to realize that even though this lawsuit is facially a “private
31 dispute” and not a class action, there is no “private dispute” standard under Section 1021.5 and a
4
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 “private dispute” can still benefit large groups of people. In County of Orange v. Barrett
2 American Inc., the court held that the fact that profit may have been a consideration to a plaintiff
3 filing suit “does not vitiate the protection of a public interest.” 150 Cal. App. 4th 420, 441-42.
4 (4th Dist. 2007). Similarly, Robinson v. City of Chowchilla held that a fee award was
5 permissible under Section 1021.5 even if the primary effect of the lawsuit were to advance the
6 plaintiff’s personal economic interest, and private enforcement was necessary because no
7 government action was being taken. 202 Cal. App. 4th 382, 399-401 (5th Dist. 2011). Here,
8 Reynolds is not aware that the State Bar has taken any action against Defendants for their
9 conduct, although he believes it should.
10 But in the meantime, Reynolds can still vindicate important public rights, namely that
11 officers of the court adhere to the Business & Professions Code and the Rules of
12 Professional Conduct. Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit are licensed California attorneys and yet,
13 according to the Complaints:
14 They took legal advice from a non-lawyer, and engaged in and promoted the
15 unauthorized practice of law.
16 They failed to do even the most basic research into the litigation’s subject matter,
17 (poorly) plagiarized documents that they did not understand, and failed to learn
18 from their prior mistakes.
19 They prepared (admittedly) unlawful contingency fee agreements, failed to
20 provide fully-signed copies to Reynolds, and – knowing the agreements are
21 voidable and void – still asserted liens against Reynolds, which has delayed his
22 recovery of monies to which he is entitled.
23 They failed to competently make claims and litigate cases, including filing
24 deficient oppositions to motions to dismiss, not filing oppositions at all, and
25 abandoning Reynolds’ claims.
26 They intentionally deceived Reynolds and failed to keep him informed about the
27 status of his claims.
28 They refused to produce necessary evidence in the course of pre-litigation
29 settlement discussions, causing a spammer to sue Reynolds, and then they
30 charged Reynolds to defend that action.
31
5
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 They filed multiple lawsuits over the identical claims, incurring unnecessary costs
2 that they billed to Reynolds.
3 They overpaid Reynolds’ investigator (and therefore underpaid Reynolds) by
4 calculating investigator fees as a percentage of gross recovery, rather than net
5 recovery after costs.
6 They converted Reynolds’ files and refused to produce complete files upon
7 demand.
8 See Complaints, generally. Reynolds believes that Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit’s conduct as to
9 him is typical of their conduct as to dozens of clients and scores of claims. Reynolds
10 estimates that Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit retained at least 20 new clients per year each for the
11 years 2020 and 2021. Extrapolated over a 25-year career, that is 1,500 Californians that have or
12 could become Defendants’ clients. In short, a large number of Californians may have
13 already been harmed, and many more may be harmed in the future, by Defendants’
14 conduct.
15 Litigation is expensive, but Reynolds stepped up and seeks to hold Defendants
16 accountable for their wrongful conduct that violates the Business & Professions Code and the
17 Rules of Professional Conduct. More importantly, Defendants’ conduct could have a chilling
18 effect on the public’s trust in lawyers and the legal system in general, thereby justifying
19 attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5.
20
21 III. CONCLUSION
22 There is no prejudice to Defendants (including the moving S&F Defendants) by
23 Reynolds’ inclusion of a reference to Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer
24 for Relief, and indeed there are benefits to the inclusion as to notice and due process.
25 Even if the primary purpose of this litigation were Reynolds’ personal economic
26 interests, there is still a valid secondary benefit for Californians at large because this lawsuit
27 should discourage Defendants from continuing their wrongful practices that may have already
28 harmed many Californians.
29 For all the reasons stated herein, this Court should deny S&F Defendants’ Motion to
30 Strike in its entirety and allow the references to attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5 to stand, as
31 did the Mendez court. But, if this Court is inclined to grant the Motion in whole or in part, then
6
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
1 Reynolds asks for leave to amend to state more supporting facts as to the scope of Defendants’
2 misconduct and the corresponding benefit to a large group of Californians from his litigating this
3 Action.
4
5 Respectfully Submitted,
6 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
7
8 Date: April 5, 2022 BY:
DANIEL BALSAM
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
7
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
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 04/05/2022 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO 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 ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; ) SHEEHAN & FEAVER DEFENDANTS’ 20 ) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 21 Defendants. ) COMPLAINT ) 22 ) Date: April 19, 2022 23 And Related Action ) Time: 11:00 am ) Dept./Judge: 304 (Hon. Ethan Schulman) 24 ) Action Filed: Aug. 2, 2021 25 ) Trial Date: Not Set 26 I. INTRODUCTION / PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff Nace Reynolds (“Reynolds”) filed two subsequently- 28 consolidated actions against Defendants Robin Amelia Sheehan, Matthew Jacob Feaver, Sheehan 29 Law Group PC, and Sheehan & Feaver PC (collectively “S&F Defendants”), and Defendants 30 Brian Morgan Heit and Heit Law Group PC (collectively “Heit Defendants”), for declaratory and 31 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 injunctive relief related to fee agreements and liens, professional negligence, conversion, fraud 2 or deceit in concealment, accounting, common counts, unfair competition, and unjust 3 enrichment. See Register of Actions. 4 Reynolds alleges that Defendants gave him facially improper contingency fee agreements 5 (and Sheehan admitted as much1), took legal advice from a non-attorney, engaged in malpractice, 6 abandoned his claims, intentionally deceived him and failed to keep him informed about his 7 cases, and converted his client files which were his property. See Complaints, generally. 8 Reynolds is personally incurring attorneys’ fees to litigate this matter, and Reynolds believes 9 that his lawsuit will reduce the likelihood of Defendants continuing their woefully 10 inadequate practices that have the potential to harm a large number of Californians. 11 Accordingly, in ¶ 312 of the Complaint filed in Case No. 594246 (pre-consolidation), Reynolds 12 prayed for attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 (“Section 1021.5”). 13 S&F Defendants moved to strike Paragraph 312 because Reynolds supposedly does not 14 allege an important public right, how a judgment in Reynolds’ favor would confer a significant 15 benefit to the general public, or that the financial burden on Reynolds is disproportionate to his 16 individual stake in the matter. Motion MPA at 2:20-23, 4:26-6:6. Also, although S&F 17 Defendants failed to mention their reasons in their Notice of Motion, Reynolds supposedly 18 cannot reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief merely 19 because, even assuming Reynolds delivers a significant benefit to a large group of people by this 20 Action, he would still have to file a subsequent motion to recover those attorneys’ fees. Motion 21 MPA at 3:10-4:25. Reynolds refers to this argument as the “subsequent motion” theory. 22 Reynolds’ Complaint is adequately-pled under California’s liberal pleading standard. See 23 Code Civ. Proc. §§ 4, 452. Indeed, in a related matter (Mendez v. Sheehan et al, Case No. CGC- 24 21-594247), another San Francisco court already denied Sheehan’s motion to strike 25 plaintiff’s similar claims for attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5. See Request for Judicial 26 Notice at ¶¶ 4-7 and Ex. A-D. This Court should do the same. 27 28 29 1 In Mendez v. Sheehan et al, a related case currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court, 30 Sheehan admitted that Defendants’ contingency fee agreements violated Business & Professions 31 Code § 6147 and that their unlawful fee agreements constituted misconduct. See RJN at ¶ 4 and Ex. A (Motion to Strike at 4:21-22, 9:14-16, and 12:22). 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Bases for Attorneys’ Fees Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 3 Section 1021.5 states that a court may award attorneys’ fees to a party that causes a 4 significant benefit (pecuniary or non-pecuniary) to be conferred on the general public or a large 5 class of persons, where the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement makes a fees 6 award appropriate, and where, in the interest of justice, the attorneys’ fees should not be paid out 7 of any recovery to the plaintiff. Indeed, the Legislature wants Californians to sue over their 8 private claims where that litigation can benefit large numbers of people. 9 The fundamental objective of the private attorney general concept as codified in section 1021.5 is to encourage suits effectuating a strong public policy by 10 awarding substantial attorneys’ fees to those who successfully bring such suits 11 and thereby bring about benefits to a large group of citizens. [ ] The doctrine rests on the recognition that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the 12 effectuation of public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions, 13 and without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys’ fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will be impracticable. 14 15 Daniels v. McKinney, 146 Cal. App. 3d 42, 49 (5th Dist. 1983) (emphasis in original) (citation 16 omitted). 17 B. S&F Defendants’ Notice of Motion Failed to Include the Subsequent Motion Theory 18 A notice of motion must state all grounds upon which the moving party is bringing that 19 motion. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1010 and Rule of Court 3.1110(a). 20 Here, S&F Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not include any argument that referring 21 to Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief is improper and subject to 22 a motion to strike merely because Reynolds would have to bring a subsequent motion to recover 23 such fees. For that reason alone, this Court could deny S&F Defendants’ Motion. 24 C. S&F Defendants are Wrong on the Law as to the Subsequent Motion Theory 25 Notwithstanding S&F Defendants’ failure to include the subsequent motion theory in 26 their Notice of Motion, S&F Defendants nevertheless include a lengthy argument in the Motion 27 MPA at 3:10-4:25 that boils down to the premise that simply because Section 1021.5 begins with 28 “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees [ ],” it is improper for Reynolds to even 29 reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in his Prayer for Relief. But S&F Defendants offer no 30 authority for this novel theory. 31 3 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 Indeed, there is case law to the contrary. In Snatchko v. Westfield LLC, the court of 2 appeal held, without ruling on the merits of awarding Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees, that “[T]he 3 trial court erred in striking Snatchko’s prayer for attorney fees [under Section 1021.5] based on a 4 failure to adequately plead their basis.” 187 Cal. App. 4th 469, 497 (3d Dist. 2010). 5 Reynolds fully understands and agrees that the plain language of Section 1021.5 requires 6 him to bring a subsequent motion to recover attorneys’ fees. But that does not mean that it is 7 improper to reference Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief, 8 such that the reference is not drawn and filed in conformity with California law and should be 9 stricken. Indeed, referencing Section 1021.5 in the Complaint gives Defendants (and their 10 malpractice insurance carriers) fair notice that Reynolds is in fact seeking attorneys’ fees. 11 Moreover, if Reynolds did not reference Section 1021.5 up front in the Complaint, 12 Defendants might conceivably argue, in opposition to that subsequent motion, that their “due 13 process” rights were somehow violated because they were not previously on notice that 14 Reynolds is seeking Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees. 15 D. Reynolds Sufficiently Pled Facts to Support Section 1021.5 Attorneys’ Fees 16 In addition to the subsequent motion theory, S&F Defendants also argue that Reynolds 17 has not alleged sufficient facts to support Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees because, even if 18 Reynolds prevails, he will not have enforced an important right affecting a large class of persons, 19 etc. Motion MPA at 4:26-28 and 6:2-6. S&F Defendants include a full page single-spaced block 20 quote on page 5 of their Motion, but that quote from Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. 21 Board of Trustees, 89 Cal. App. 3d 274, 292-293 (1979) adds little to their argument to strike, 22 because: a) Defendants fail to provide any of the underlying facts or allegations from Residents 23 Ad Hoc Stadium Committee and compare/contrast the instant facts and allegations; b) The quote 24 seems to involve a particular plaintiff who did not prevail nevertheless still trying to claim fees 25 under Section 1021.5; and c) The plaintiff apparently sought recovery of attorneys’ fees under 26 several legal theories (common fund, vexatious litigant) that have no relevance to this dispute. 27 Regardless, as cited above, even if Reynolds did not adequately plead a basis for Section 28 1021.5 attorneys’ fees, that is not grounds to strike it from the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief. 29 Snatchko, 187 Cal. App. 4th at 497. 30 S&F Defendants also fail to realize that even though this lawsuit is facially a “private 31 dispute” and not a class action, there is no “private dispute” standard under Section 1021.5 and a 4 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 “private dispute” can still benefit large groups of people. In County of Orange v. Barrett 2 American Inc., the court held that the fact that profit may have been a consideration to a plaintiff 3 filing suit “does not vitiate the protection of a public interest.” 150 Cal. App. 4th 420, 441-42. 4 (4th Dist. 2007). Similarly, Robinson v. City of Chowchilla held that a fee award was 5 permissible under Section 1021.5 even if the primary effect of the lawsuit were to advance the 6 plaintiff’s personal economic interest, and private enforcement was necessary because no 7 government action was being taken. 202 Cal. App. 4th 382, 399-401 (5th Dist. 2011). Here, 8 Reynolds is not aware that the State Bar has taken any action against Defendants for their 9 conduct, although he believes it should. 10 But in the meantime, Reynolds can still vindicate important public rights, namely that 11 officers of the court adhere to the Business & Professions Code and the Rules of 12 Professional Conduct. Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit are licensed California attorneys and yet, 13 according to the Complaints: 14 They took legal advice from a non-lawyer, and engaged in and promoted the 15 unauthorized practice of law. 16 They failed to do even the most basic research into the litigation’s subject matter, 17 (poorly) plagiarized documents that they did not understand, and failed to learn 18 from their prior mistakes. 19 They prepared (admittedly) unlawful contingency fee agreements, failed to 20 provide fully-signed copies to Reynolds, and – knowing the agreements are 21 voidable and void – still asserted liens against Reynolds, which has delayed his 22 recovery of monies to which he is entitled. 23 They failed to competently make claims and litigate cases, including filing 24 deficient oppositions to motions to dismiss, not filing oppositions at all, and 25 abandoning Reynolds’ claims. 26 They intentionally deceived Reynolds and failed to keep him informed about the 27 status of his claims. 28 They refused to produce necessary evidence in the course of pre-litigation 29 settlement discussions, causing a spammer to sue Reynolds, and then they 30 charged Reynolds to defend that action. 31 5 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 They filed multiple lawsuits over the identical claims, incurring unnecessary costs 2 that they billed to Reynolds. 3 They overpaid Reynolds’ investigator (and therefore underpaid Reynolds) by 4 calculating investigator fees as a percentage of gross recovery, rather than net 5 recovery after costs. 6 They converted Reynolds’ files and refused to produce complete files upon 7 demand. 8 See Complaints, generally. Reynolds believes that Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit’s conduct as to 9 him is typical of their conduct as to dozens of clients and scores of claims. Reynolds 10 estimates that Sheehan, Feaver, and Heit retained at least 20 new clients per year each for the 11 years 2020 and 2021. Extrapolated over a 25-year career, that is 1,500 Californians that have or 12 could become Defendants’ clients. In short, a large number of Californians may have 13 already been harmed, and many more may be harmed in the future, by Defendants’ 14 conduct. 15 Litigation is expensive, but Reynolds stepped up and seeks to hold Defendants 16 accountable for their wrongful conduct that violates the Business & Professions Code and the 17 Rules of Professional Conduct. More importantly, Defendants’ conduct could have a chilling 18 effect on the public’s trust in lawyers and the legal system in general, thereby justifying 19 attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5. 20 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 There is no prejudice to Defendants (including the moving S&F Defendants) by 23 Reynolds’ inclusion of a reference to Section 1021.5 attorneys’ fees in the Complaint’s Prayer 24 for Relief, and indeed there are benefits to the inclusion as to notice and due process. 25 Even if the primary purpose of this litigation were Reynolds’ personal economic 26 interests, there is still a valid secondary benefit for Californians at large because this lawsuit 27 should discourage Defendants from continuing their wrongful practices that may have already 28 harmed many Californians. 29 For all the reasons stated herein, this Court should deny S&F Defendants’ Motion to 30 Strike in its entirety and allow the references to attorneys’ fees under Section 1021.5 to stand, as 31 did the Mendez court. But, if this Court is inclined to grant the Motion in whole or in part, then 6 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT 1 Reynolds asks for leave to amend to state more supporting facts as to the scope of Defendants’ 2 misconduct and the corresponding benefit to a large group of Californians from his litigating this 3 Action. 4 5 Respectfully Submitted, 6 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM 7 8 Date: April 5, 2022 BY: DANIEL BALSAM 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 7 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO S&F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT