Motion for Consolidation 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 Jean Cha (SBN: 228137)
jean@chalawethics.com
2 Ed Sasaki (SBN: 158930) ELECTRONICALLY
ed@chalawethics.com
3 CHA LAW ETHICS FILED
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Orange, California 92868
Telephone: (714) 242-8588 11/24/2021
Clerk of the Court
5 Fax: (657) 235-8588 BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendant,
ROBIN A. SHEEHAN
7

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – UNLIMITED CIVIL
10

11
NACE REYNOLDS, an individual; Case Nos.
12 Reynolds 1 -- CGC-21-594238 and
Reynolds 2 -- CGC-21-594246
13 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT ROBIN SHEEHAN’S
14 v.
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
15 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; ORDER CONSOLIDATING REYNOLDS
MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, and 1 AND 2
16 individual; SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a
(former) professional corporation; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
17 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California AUTHORITIES
professional corporation;
18 BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a professional
19 corporation; and DOES 1-10;
Ex Parte Hearing
20 Defendants. DATE: Monday, November 29, 2021
TIME: 11:00 a.m.
21 DEPT: 302

23 Action Filed: August 2, 2021
Trial Date: None Set
24

25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Monday, November 29, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., or as

27 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Dept. 302 of this Court, located at 400 McAllister Street,

28 San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant ROBIN SHEEHAN will move the Court ex parte for

1
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 an order consolidating the two actions in Reynolds 1 (CGC-21-594238) and Reynolds 2 (CGC-21-

2 594246) pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, lodged with the Court on or about October 29, 2021,

3 and signed by counsel for all parties. A copy of the stipulation and proposed order are attached as

4 Exhibit A.

5 This Ex Parte Application will be based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 (a)

6 and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 and 3.1320 (d). Defendant gave proper notice

7 of this Ex Parte Application pursuant to CRC 3.1204. (See generally Sasaki Decl.)

9 DATED: November 24, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS

11 By: ______________________________________
Jean Cha, Esq.
12 Ed Sasaki, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBIN SHEEHAN
13

2
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

3 On or about September 29, 2021, after meeting and conferring, counsel for Defendant

4 Sheehan and counsel for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds agreed to stipulate to consolidate the Reynolds 1

5 and 2 actions, to avoid the need for Ms. Sheehan to file a Demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff had

6 split his causes of action. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 2.)

7 On or about October 28, 2021, both counsel for Defendant Sheehan and counsel for Plaintiff

8 Nace Reynolds signed a stipulation and proposed order to consolidate Reynolds 1 and 2. This

9 stipulation and order was lodged with the Court on or about October 29, 2021, but to date the Court

10 has not yet signed the proposed order. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)

11 Accordingly, Defendant Sheehan respectfully requests that the Court sign the proposed order

12 consolidating the two actions. This will promote judicial economy by avoiding the need for

13 Defendant Sheehan to file a demurrer. This is a matter of some urgency as Defendant Sheehan’s

14 deadline to file a responsive pleading in Reynolds 1 falls on December 7, 2021, and the parties wish

15 to proceed with the action, rather than delay matters with the filing of a demurrer in Reynolds 1.

16 (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 4.)

17 It is anticipated that counsel for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds will not oppose this Ex Parte

18 Application as counsel signed the stipulation and proposed order and recently requested in an email

19 that counsel for Defendant Sheehan call the matter to the Court’s attention by filing an Ex Parte

20 Application. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 5.)

21 Copies of the relevant Complaints in Reynolds 1 and 2 are attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit

22 C to the Sasaki Declaration. To promote judicial economy, those copies include only the pleadings

23 and do not include the exhibits that Plaintiff attached to the pleadings. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 6, Exhibits

24 B and C.)

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

3
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION

2 The Court has discretion to consolidate related actions pursuant to CRC 3.350 and CCP

3 1048, when actions involving common questions of law or fact are pending before the Court.

4 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (c), the Sasaki Declaration contains “competent testimony based

5 on personal knowledge” and “make[s] an affirmative factual showing . . . of irreparable harm,

6 immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Here, if ex parte

7 relief is not granted, the Court may be required to waste judicial resources on an unnecessary

8 demurrer and the parties may suffer unnecessary delay and expense in litigating an unnecessary

9 demurrer. The Sasaki Declaration demonstrates good cause for an order consolidating the two

10 actions pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

11 Furthermore, "[t]he courts have inherent and implied power to control judicial proceedings

12 in order to insure the orderly administration of justice." (People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645,

13 656.) Thus, California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 represents a statutory confirmation of the

14 court's power "[t]o provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers," of power

15 "[t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process," and power "[t]o control in furtherance

16 of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected

17 with a judicial proceeding before it . . . ." (California Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a)(3)-(5).) This

18 authority has been amplified by court decision. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 291,

19 301; People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 556; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897,

20 907; Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 190, 206-207.)

21 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (a), the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers

22 for Plaintiff’s counsel, Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker, are set forth in the attached proof of service.

23 IV. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE

24 APPLICATION

25 Defendant's counsel timely provided Plaintiff’s counsel with notice of the Ex Parte

26 Application by e-mail before 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 24, 2021, which is one court

27 day before the hearing on Monday, November 29, 2021. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 7, Exhibit D.) Thus, ex

28 parte notice was timely provided to all parties. (California Rule of Court 3.1203 (a); 3.1206.) It is

4
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 presumed that Plaintiff’s counsel will not oppose the Ex Parte Application.

2 V. CONCLUSION

3 Moving Defendant respectfully requests that the Court rule on this Ex Parte Application

4 based on the moving papers and without oral argument. Therefore, Moving Defendant seeks leave

5 of Court for the parties and their counsel NOT to appear at the hearing on this matter.

7 DATED: November 24, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS

9 By: ______________________________________
Jean Cha, Esq.
10 Ed Sasaki, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBIN SHEEHAN
11

5
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI

2 I, EDWIN N. SASAKI, declare as follows:

3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am a Senior

4 Associate with the law firm of Cha Law Ethics, attorneys of record for Defendant ROBIN

5 SHEEHAN in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except as to those

6 matters expressly stated on information and belief. All exhibits attached to this declaration are true

7 and correct copies of the documents described herein.

8 2. On or about September 29, 2021, after meeting and conferring, counsel for Defendant

9 Sheehan and counsel for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds agreed to stipulate to consolidate the Reynolds 1

10 and 2 actions, to avoid the need for Ms. Sheehan to file a Demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff had

11 split his causes of action.

12 3. On or about October 28, 2021, both counsel for Defendant Sheehan and counsel for

13 Plaintiff Nace Reynolds signed a stipulation and proposed order to consolidate Reynolds 1 and 2.

14 This stipulation and order was lodged with the Court on or about October 29, 2021, but to date the

15 Court has not yet signed the proposed order. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)

16 4. Defendant Sheehan respectfully requests that the Court sign the proposed order

17 consolidating the two actions. This will promote judicial economy by avoiding the need for

18 Defendant Sheehan to file a demurrer. This is a matter of some urgency as Defendant Sheehan’s

19 deadline to file a responsive pleading in Reynolds 1 falls on December 7, 2021, and the parties wish

20 to proceed with the action, rather than delay matters with the filing of a demurrer in Reynolds 1.

21 5, It is anticipated that counsel for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds will not oppose this Ex Parte

22 Application as counsel signed the stipulation and proposed order and recently requested in an email

23 that counsel for Defendant Sheehan call the matter to the Court’s attention by filing an Ex Parte

24 Application.

25 6. Copies of the relevant Complaints in Reynolds 1 and 2 are attached as Exhibit B and

26 Exhibit C to the Sasaki Declaration. To promote judicial economy, those copies include only the

27 pleadings and do not include the exhibits that Plaintiff attached to the pleadings.

28 7. Consistent with CRC 3.1203 (a), on Thursday, November 24, 2021, prior to 10:00

6
DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI
1 a.m., I caused an email to be sent to Plaintiff’s counsel notifying them of this Ex Parte Application

2 and included a carbon copy to the Court and co-counsel for Defendant Sheehan, attorneys Alex

3 Graft and Kendall Layne of Lewis Brisbois law firm. A copy of the email notice is attached as

4 Exhibit D.

5 I declare under penalty of perjury for the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

6 true and correct,

7 Executed this 24th day of November 2021 at Irvine, CA.

9 ______________________________________
EDWIN N. SASAKI, Esq.
10

7
DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI
Exhibit A

1
1 Jean Cha (SBN: 228137)
jean@chalawethics.com
2
Ed Sasaki (SBN: 158930)
3 ed@chalawethics.com
CHA LAW ETHICS
4
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250
5 Orange, California 92868
Telephone: (714) 242-8588
6
Fax: (657) 235-8588
7
Alexander A. Graft (State Bar No. 239647)
8
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
9 333 Bush Street, Ste. 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104
10
Tel: (415) 362-2580
11 Fax: (415) 434-0882
Email: alex.graft@lewisbrisbois.com
12
13 Attorneys for Defendant ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
17
NACE REYNOLDS; ) Case No.: CGC-21-594238
18
) CGC-21-594246
19 Plaintiff, )
v. ) STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE
20
) CASES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
21 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, et al; )
) Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a)
22
Defendants. )
23 NACE REYNOLDS; )
)
24
Plaintiff, )
25 v. )
)
26
BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, et al; )
27 )
Defendants. )
28
29
I. BACKGROUND / BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
30
Plaintiff Nace Reynolds (“Reynolds”) recently filed two separate Actions in San
31
Francisco County alleging different causes of action against the same six defendants: Robin

1
STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 Amelia Sheehan, Matthew Jacob Feaver, Sheehan Law Group PC, Sheehan & Feaver PC, Brian
2 Heit, and Heit Law Group PC. Those Actions are: Reynolds v. Sheehan (CGC-21-594238) and
3 Reynolds v. Heit (CGC-21-594246).
4 Defendant Robin Amelia Sheehan (the “Stipulating Defendant”) proposed filing a
5 demurrer on the ground that the two Actions split causes of action. Although Reynolds disagrees
6 that the two Actions split causes of action, he agrees that the two Actions involve common
7 questions of fact.
8 II. LEGAL STANDARD
9 Code of Civil Procedure § 1048 allows a court to order pending actions consolidated, and
10 to make procedural orders to avoid unnecessary costs and delay, where the actions involve
11 common questions of law or fact.
12 Here, the two Actions involve common questions of fact.
13 III. STIPULATION
14 Reynolds and the Stipulating Defendant agree to complete consolidation of the Reynolds
15 v. Sheehan and Reynolds v. Heit Actions for all purposes.
16
17 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
18
,t
r
~
19 Dated: Oct. 29, 2021
Daniel Balsam
20
Attorney for Plaintiff Nace Reynolds
21
CHA LAW ETHICS
22

.
23

.
Dated: October 29, 2021
24
Ed Sasaki
25 Attorney for Stipulating Defendant Robin Sheehan
In Case No. CGC-21-594238
26
27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
28
29 Dated: October 29, 2021 /s/ Alexander Graft
Alexander Graft
30
Attorney for Stipulating Defendant Robin Sheehan
31 In Case No. CGC-21-594246
2
STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 ORDER
2 THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED.
3  The two Actions Reynolds v. Sheehan (CGC-21-594238) and Reynolds v. Heit (CGC-
4 21-594246) are consolidated for all purposes.
5  Reynolds v. Sheehan (CGC-21-594238) is the lead case and all further filings shall be
6 in this case only.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 DATED:
Judge of the Superior Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

3
STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Exhibit B

3
1 Jacob Harker (State Bar No. 261262)
LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
2
268 Bush St. #3732 ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, CA 94104 FILED
Tel: (415) 624-7602 Superior Court of Califomi ,
4 County of San Francisco
Fax: (415) 684-7757
5 Email: jacob@harkercounsel.com 08/02/2021
Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
6
Daniel L. Balsam (State Bar No. 260423) Deputy Cle k

7 THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
2601C Blanding Avenue #271
8
Alameda, CA 94501
9 Tel: (415) 869-2873
l O Fax: (415) 869-2873
Email: legal@danbalsam.com
11
Attorneys for PlaintiffNACE REYNOLDS
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
CGC-21-594 38
15 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
16
NACE REYNOLDS, an individual; ) CaseNo.:
17 )
Plaintiff, )
18
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
19 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; )
20
MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, an individual; ) 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF- FEE
21 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a (former) ) AGREEMENTS (Civ. Code§ 1060)
California professional corporation; ) 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF- LIENS
22
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California ) (Civ. Code § 1060)
23 professional corporation; )
BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; )
24
HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a California )
25 professional corporation; and )
DOES 1-10; )
26
)
27 Defendants. )
28
COMES NOW Plaintiff NACE REYNOLDS and files this Complaint for two causes of action
29
against Defendants ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN et al and alleges as follows:
30
31

1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
V

1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiff NACE REYNOLDS ("REYNOLDS") brings this Action against Defendants
3 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN (an attorney), MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER (an attorney),
4 SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC (formerly a law firm), and SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC (a law
5 firm), (collectively, the "S&F DEFENDANTS"); BRIAN MORGAN HEIT (an attorney) and
6 HEIT LAW GROUP PC (a law firm) (collectively, the "HEIT DEFENDANTS"); and DOES 1-
7 10 for declaratory relief and injunctive relief arising from: a) DEFENDANTS' multiple
8 unlawful contingency fee agreements; and b) the S&F DEFENDANTS' wrongful acts of filing a
9 Notice of Attorney's Lien in three separate lawsuits in which the S&F DEFENDANTS formerly
10 represented REYNOLDS, before he discharged them:
11 • Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc., Case No. 20-CIV-02726 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of
12 San Mateo filed July 2, 2020) ("Social Concepts action").
13 • Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc., Case No. 30-2020-01156233-CU-NP-CJC
14 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of Orange filed Aug. 20, 2020) ("Forward Leap #2 action"). 1
15 • Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC, Case No. C21-00167 (Super. Ct. Cal. Cty. of
16 Contra Costa filed Feb. 8, 2021) ("Holistic Choice action").
17 REYNOLDS refers to the Social Concepts, Forward Leap #2, and Holistic Choice actions
18 collectively as the "Three Lawsuits."
19 2. DEFENDANTS' written contingency fee agreements fail to comply with Business &
20 Professions Code§ 6147(a)(2) and (a)(4), and most fail to comply with Business &
21 Professions Code§ 6147(a), and therefore the agreements are all voidable pursuant to Business
22 & Professions Code§ 6147(b).
23

24 3. By filing and serving this Complaint, REYNOLDS is rescinding and voiding any and
25 allfee agreements between himself and DEFENDANTS. See Civ. Code§ 1691.
26
27 4. Because the fee agreements between DEFENDANTS and REYNOLDS are void, any
28 purported liens by DEFENDANTS on any recoveries REYNOLDS might receive in any matters
29
1
As discussed below, the HEIT DEFENDANTS represented REYNOLDS in a prior, duplicative
30
action against Forward Leap Marketing Inc. in Los Angeles County. The S&F DEFENDANTS
31 substituted into the prior Forward Leap #1 action in Los Angeles County and dismissed it, in
order to maintain the Forward Leap #2 action in Orange County.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 in which DEFENDANTS formerly represented REYNOLDS, including but not limited to the
2 Three Lawsuits, are void too.
3 5. REYNOLDS is also filing a related lawsuit for professional negligence against
4 DEFENDANTS describing how they used him as a pawn in their litigation mill and made
5 numerous claims on his behalf since 2020 without his approval, incompetently represented him,
6 failed to communicate with him, failed to provide accounting statements and distribute monies
7 properly, and even got him sued by bungling a settlement demand.
8 6. REYNOLDS seeks declaratory relief and an Order from this Court: a) That any and all
9 fee agreements between REYNOLDS and DEFENDANTS are voidable and now void; 2) That
10 DEFENDANTS have no liens on any recovery REYNOLDS might receive in any matters in
11 which they formerly represented REYNOLDS, including but not limited to the Three Lawsuits;
12 and 3) The S&F DEFENDANTS must withdraw the Notices of Attorneys Lien they filed in the
13 Three Lawsuits.
14
15 II. PARTffiS
16 A. Plaintiff
17 7. Plaintiff NACE REYNOLDS ("REYNOLDS") is and was at all relevant times
18 domiciled in and a citizen of the State of California.
19 B. Defendants
20 8. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ROBIN
21 AMELIA SHEEHAN ("SHEEHAN") is and was at all relevant times domiciled in and a citizen
22 of the State of California in the City and County of San Francisco. SHEEHAN is a licensed
23 California attorney (State Bar No. 315933), admitted to the California State Bar in 2017. When
24 SHEEHAN first represented REYNOLDS, she was a "member" of another law firm, HEIT
25 LAW GROUP PC. SHEEHAN subsequently left HEIT LAW GROUP PC, started SHEEHAN
26 LAW GROUP PC, and took several of REYNOLDS' claims with her, for which she and
27 REYNOLDS entered a new fee agreement.
28 9. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant MATTHEW
29 JACOB FEAVER ("FEA VER") is and was at all relevant times domiciled in and a citizen of
30 the State of California in the City and County of San Francisco. FEAVER is a licensed
31 California attorney (State Bar No. 318926), admitted to the California State Bar in 2017. On

3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
V

1 information and belief, FEAVER was a "member" of HEIT LAW GROUP PC when that law
2 firm first represented REYNOLDS, but REYNOLDS does not recall having any interactions
3 with FEAVER while FEAVER was at HEIT LG.
4 10. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SHEEHAN
5 LAW GROUP PC ("SLG") is a former law firm, which SHEEHAN registered with the
6 California Secretary of State on May 18, 2020, after leaving HEIT LAW GROUP PC.
7 11. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SHEEHAN &
8 FEAVER PC ("S&F") is the successor to SLG. On June 29, 2020, SLG filed an amendment to
9 its articles of incorporation and changed its name to S&F. Since May 18, 2020, SLG and then
10 S&F has been a California professional corporation of attorneys, claiming its address to be 5 3rd
11 Street, Suite 722, San Francisco, CA 94102. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon
12 alleges that SHEEHAN is and was at all relevant times a principal of SLG/S&F, and that, at
13 some point, FEA VER became one of SLG/S&F's principals.
14 12. REYNOLDS hereafter refers to SHEEHAN, FEAVER, SLG, and S&F collectively as the
15 "S&F DEFENDANTS."
16 13. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BRIAN
17 MORGAN HEIT ("HEIT"} is and was at all relevant times domiciled in and a citizen of the
18 State of California in the County of Ventura. HEIT is a licensed California attorney (State Bar
19 No. 302474), admitted to the California State Bar in 2015.
20 14. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant HEIT LAW
21 GROUP PC ("HEIT LG") is and was at all relevant times a California professional corporation
2
22 of attorneys, claiming its address to be 340 South Lemon Avenue, Suite 8933, Walnut, CA
23 91789. REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HEIT is and was at all
24 relevant times the principal of HEIT LG, and that HEIT LG currently and in the past included
25 other attorneys (including but not limited to SHEEHAN and FEAVER), staff, and law
26 students/clerks providing legal advice.
27
28 2
REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon allege that 340 South Lemon A venue in
29 Walnut, California is a commercial mail receiving agency- VirtualPostMail-and HEIT/HEIT
LG violated 64 F.R. 14385-14391, which amended Domestic Mail Manual D042.2.5-042.2.7
30 effective August 1, 2001, prohibiting use of"suite" in conjunction with a private mailbox. See
31 also USPS, Private Mailbox Addresses, https://pe.usps.com/text/pub28/28c2_ 041.htm (last
visited Feb. 25, 2021) (prohibiting any identifier for private mailboxes other than PMB and#).
4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 15. REYNOLDS hereafter refers to HEIT and HEIT LG collectively as the "HEIT
2 DEFENDANTS."
3 16. REYNOLDS does not know the true names or legal capacities of the DEFENDANTS
4 designated herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and therefore sue said DEFENDANTS under
5 the fictitious name of"DOE." REYNOLDS is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
6 each of the DEFENDANTS designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner
7 for the matters alleged in this complaint, and is legally responsible in some manner for causing
8 the injuries and damages of which Plaintiff complains. REYNOLDS is informed and believes
9 and thereon alleges that each of the DEFENDANTS designated herein as a DOE DEFENDANT
10 was, at all times relevant to the matters alleged within this complaint, acting in conjunction with
11 the named DEFENDANTS, whether as a director, officer, employee, partner, affiliate, customer,
12 participant, or co-conspirator. When the identities of DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 are discovered,
13 or otherwise made available, REYNOLDS will seek to amend this Complaint to allege their
14 identity and involvement with particularity.
15 17. REYNOLDS hereafter refers to SHEEHAN, FEAVER, SLG, S&F, HEIT, HEIT LG, and
16 DOES 1-10 collectively as the "DEFENDANTS."
17
18 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19 A. Unlimited Jurisdiction is Proper in a California Superior Court
20 18. A California Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Action because: a) All Parties are
21 California citizens and residents; b) The value of the underlying claims at issue exceeds $25,000;
22 and c) Injunctive relief is only available in unlimited jurisdiction.
23 B. Venue is Proper in San Francisco County
24 19. Venue is proper in San Francisco County because Defendants SHEEHAN, FEAVER, and
25 S&F all reside in San Francisco County. See Code Civ. Proc.§ 395.
26
27 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE UNDERLYING ACTIONS
28 A. Legal Requirements for Contingency Fee Agreements
29 20. Business & Professions Code§ 6147(a) states that attorneys must provide their clients
30 with fully-signed copies of contingency fee agreements at the time the contracts are entered into.
31

5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 21. Business & Professions Code § 6147(a)(2) states that contingency fee agreements must
2 state how disbursements and costs will affect the contingency fee and the client's recovery.
3 22. Business & Professions Code§ 6147(a)(4) states that contingency fee agreements must
4 state that the fee is negotiable and not set by law.
5 23. Business & Professions Code§ 6147(b) states that failure to comply with any provision
6 of Section 6147 renders the fee agreement voidable at the client's option, in which case the
7 attorney is only entitled to collect a "reasonable fee."
8 24. For the reasons set forth below, all of DEFENDANTS' fee agreements fail to comply
9 with Section 6147(a)(2) and (a)(4), and most also fail to comply with Section 6147(a), and are
IO thus voidable.
11 B. The Heit Law Group Contingency Fee Agreements Do Not Comply with Business &
Professions Code§ 6147 and are Therefore Voidable, and Reynolds Voided Them
12
25. On March 5, 2020, REYNOLDS contacted SHEEHAN regarding legal representation to
13
bring claims under Business & Professions Code§ 17529.5. At that time, SHEEHAN was
14
employed at HEIT LG.
15
26. Between March 12 and April 29, 2020, REYNOLDS signed at least nine written
16
contingency fee agreements with HEIT LG for legal services. During that time, SHEEHAN was
17
the primary attorney from HEIT LG with whom REYNOLDS communicated, although he also
18
communicated with Donna Bryant ("Bryant") and Justin Tavaf, both non-lawyer employees of
19
HEIT LG. Those nine agreements are:
20
21 • eHarmony Inc. (signed by REYNOLDS on March 12, 2020). Exhibit A is a true and
correct copy of the eHarmony fee agreement.
22
• Social Concepts Inc. (Fubar) (signed by REYNOLDS on March 27, 2020). Exhibit
23 B is a true and correct copy of the Social Concepts fee agreement.
24 • Forward Leap Marketing Inc. (Everest Tax Relief) #1 (signed by REYNOLDS on
March 31, 2020). Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Forward Leap
25
Marketing #1 fee agreement.
26
• Fluent Inc. (signed by REYNOLDS on April 1, 2020). Exhibit D is a true and
27 correct copy of the Fluent fee agreement.
28 • Endure Health Alliance LLC (Getinstahard) (signed by REYNOLDS on April 8,
2020). Exhibit Eis a true and correct copy of the Endure fee agreement.
29
• Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC (5Firming Fruits) #1 (signed by REYNOLDS on April 8,
30
2020). Exhibit Fis a true and correct copy of the Self-Upgrade #1 fee agreement.
31

6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 • Edge Financial Inc. (StoplRSDebt) (signed by REYNOLDS on April 13, 2020).
2 Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Edge Financial fee agreement.

3
• Spark Networks Inc. (Zoosk) (signed by REYNOLDS on April 20, 2020). Exhibit H
is a true and correct copy of the Spark fee agreement.
4
• Clickbooth.com LLC (signed by REYNOLDS on April 28, 2020). Exhibit I is a true
5 and correct copy of the C/ickbooth fee agreement.
6 27. The HEIT DEFENDANTS never provided REYNOLDS with fully-signed copies of any
7 of the nine contingency fee agreements identified above; that is to say, REYNOLDS only has
8 copies with his signature and no attorney signature. On information and belief, these
9 contingency agreements were drafted by the HEIT DEFENDANTS and failed to state how
10 disbursements and costs incurred would affect the contingency fee and REYNOLDS' recovery,
11 and failed to state that the fees were not set by law but were negotiable between attorney and
12 client. See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(a), (a)(2), (a)(4). For all of these reasons, these
13 contingency fee agreements are voidable. See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(b).
14 28. On information and belief, on or after March 12, 2020, REYNOLDS signed other
15 contingency fee agreements with the HEIT DEFENDANTS for other claims against different
16 spammers, including but not limited to a lawsuit against Laurie Latham dba US Tax Defense.
17 The HEIT DEFENDANTS did not provide REYNOLDS with any copy - partially- or fully-
18 signed - of written contingency fee agreements for these claims. On information and belief,
19 these contingency fee agreements were also drafted by the HEIT DEFENDANTS and failed to
20 state how disbursements and costs incurred would affect the contingency fee and REYNOLDS'
21 recovery, and failed to state that the fees were not set by law but were negotiable between
22 attorney and client. See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(a), (a)(2), (a)(4). For all of these reasons,
23 these contingency fee agreements are voidable too. See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(b).
24 29. By filing and serving this Complaint, REYNOLDS is rescinding and voiding any and all
25 fee agreements between himself and the HEIT DEFENDANTS. See Civ. Code§ 1691.
26 C. The S&F Defendants' Contingency Fee Agreements Do Not Comply with Business &
Professions Code§ 6147 and are Therefore Voidable, and Reynolds Voided Them
27
30. In May 2020, SHEEHAN anticipated leaving HEIT LG and bringing five cases with her,
28
including the Social Concepts action.
29
1. Sheehan's Three Personal Fee Agreements
30
31. On May 7, 2020, SHEEHAN emailed REYNOLDS stating, in full:
31

7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
V V

1 Hi Nace, I am starting my own law practice. I have attached a letter with more
detail and have sent you some documents for signature if you would like me to
2 continue to represent you. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best,
3 Robin A. Sheehan, Esq.

4 Attached to that email was a letter that stated:
RE: Endure Health Alliance ("GetlnstaHard"); Self-Upgrade Ventures, LLC
5
("5FirmingFruits"); Social Concepts, Inc. ("Fubar"); Edge Financial, Inc.
6 ("StoplRSDebt"); and Spark Networks, Inc. ("Zoosk") matters at Heit Law Group,
PC.
7
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
8
On May 8, 2020, I am leaving Heit Law Group, PC to commence my own
9 practice. Because I have been the lawyer primarily responsible for handling your
case, this letter is to notify you that you may continue to retain me to represent
10 you in this matter, you may choose to have another attorney of Heit Law Group,
11 PC represent you, or you may select a new attorney unrelated to either myself or
Heit Law Group, PC. If you would like me to continue to represent you in the
12 above matters, please sign the retainer agreement I have sent via DocuSign. I
look forward to our continued work together.
13
32. On May 7, 2020, SHEEHAN -in her personal capacity- sent REYNOLDS a single
14
contingency fee agreement on SLG letterhead that she had drafted for those five cases ("Five
15
Case SLG Fee Agreement"), which included the Social Concepts action. SHEEHAN and
16
REYNOLDS both signed the Five Case SLG Fee Agreement, and SHEEHAN provided
17
REYNOLDS with a fully-signed copy. Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Five Case
18
SLG Fee Agreement. Notably, SLG did not exist on May 7, 2020. Indeed, the first paragraph of
19
the Five Case Fee Agreement expressly stated that SLG was not yet incorporated and that
20
SHEEHAN was signing it in her personal capacity.
21
33. On May 19, 2020, SHEEHAN sent REYNOLDS a contingency fee agreement on SLG
22
letterhead for his claims against Greenwise Financial Solutions LLC ("Greenwise Fee
23
Agreement"). SHEEHAN and REYNOLDS both signed the Greenwise Fee Agreement, and
24
SHEEHAN provided REYNOLDS with a fully-signed copy. Exhibit K is a true and correct
25
copy of the Greenwise Fee Agreement. That fee agreement also expressly stated that SLG was
26
not yet incorporated - even though it was at that point - and that SHEEHAN was signing it in
27
her personal capacity.
28
34. On May 29, 2020, SHEEHAN sent REYNOLDS a contingency fee agreement on SLG
29
letterhead for his claims against One Technologies LLC claims ("OT Fee Agreement").
30
SHEEHAN and REYNOLDS both signed the OT Fee Agreement, and SHEEHAN provided
31
REYNOLDS with a fully-signed copy. Exhibit Lis a true and correct copy of the OT Fee
8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Agreement. That retainer expressly stated that SLG was not yet incorporated - even though it
2 was at that point - and that SHEEHAN was signing it in her personal capacity.
3 35. SHEEHAN never notified REYNOLDS in writing that SLG was assuming her personal
4 liabilities under the Five Case SLG Fee Agreement, the Greenwise Fee Agreement, or the OT
5 Fee Agreement. The S&F DEFENDANTS and REYNOLDS never signed any subsequent
6 modifications or new agreements so affirming either.
7 36. The Five Case SLG Fee Agreement (covering REYNOLDS' claims against Edge
8 Financial Inc. (StopIRSDebt), Endure Health Alliance LLC, Self-Upgrade Ventures LLC
9 (5FirmingFruits), Social Concepts Inc. (Fubar), and Spark Networks Inc. (Zoosk)), the
10 Greenwise Fee Agreement, and the OT Fee Agreement were all contingency fee agreements, but
11 they failed to provide statements as to how disbursements and costs incurred would affect the
12 contingency fees and REYNOLDS' recoveries,3 and they failed to state that the fees were not set
13 by law but were negotiable between attorney and client. For both of these reasons, the Five Case
14 SLG Fee Agreement, the Greenwise Fee Agreement, and the OT Fee Agreement are voidable.
15 See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(a)(2), (a)(4), (b).
16 2. Other Fee Agreements with the S&F Defendants
17 37. After about May 2020, the S&F DEFENDANTS changed their electronic signature/
18 document filing system whereby they would send documents for REYNOLDS' electronic
19 signature. Now, when documents were signed, the system would send REYNOLDS links to the
20 documents- not the actual documents themselves- and those links automatically expired in just
21 seven days. Therefore, if REYNOLDS did not quickly click the links and download the
22 documents he signed within that all-too-brief time period, he would not have copies.
23 REYNOLDS did not download any of these documents within the seven days allotted, and then
24 all of the links expired, and he could not thereafter access the documents. For that reason,
25 REYNOLDS does not have copies of any written fee agreements with the S&F DEFENDANTS
26 (whether fully- or even partially-signed) other than SHEEHAN'S three personal agreements (the
27 Five Case SLG Fee Agreement, the Greenwise Fee Agreement, and the OT Fee Agreement),
28 discussed above.
29
30 3
The Self-Upgrade #2 action demonstrates the importance of this requirement, as the S&F
31 DEFENDANTS charged REYNOLDS for 14.29% ofthe costs even though he recovered only
7.45% of the aggregate settlement.
9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 38. On information and belief, REYNOLDS signed other contingency fee agreements with
2 SHEEHAN, SLG, and/or S&F regarding the Forward Leap #2 and Holistic Choice actions, and
3 possibly claims against other spammers, but the S&F DEFENDANTS never provided
4 REYNOLDS with fully-signed (or even partially-signed) copies of any of these agreements. On
5 information and belief, these agreements were similar to the Five Case SLG Fee Agreement, the
6 Greenwise Fee Agreement, and the OT Fee Agreement, and these agreements also failed to state
7 how disbursements and costs incurred would affect the contingency fee and REYNOLDS'
8 recovery, and failed to state that the fees were not set by law but were negotiable between
9 attorney and client. For all of these reasons, these contingency fee agreements are voidable too.
IO See Bus. & Prof. Code§ 6147(a), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b).
11 39. By filing and serving this Complaint, REYNOLDS is rescinding and voiding any and all
12 fee agreements between himself and the S&F DEFENDANTS. See Civ. Code§ 1691.
13 C. The Sheehan & Feaver Defendants Filed-and Were Fired From-the Three Lawsuits
14 J. Reynolds v. Social Concepts Inc.
15 40. REYNOLDS signed the written contingency Five Case SLG Fee Agreement
16 contemplating the possibility of the S&F DEFENDANTS filing a lawsuit against Social
17 Concepts Inc. dba Fubar ("Social Concepts") on his behalf. (The S&F DEFENDANTS did
18 provide REYNOLDS with a fully-signed copy of the contingency Five Case SLG Fee
19 Agreement, see Exhibit J, whereas the HEIT DEFENDANTS had previously provided only a
20 partially-signed written contingency fee agreement, see Exhibit B.) But, the S&F
21 DEFENDANTS never informed REYNOLDS that they would actually be filing that lawsuit.
22 41. Nevertheless, the S&F DEFENDANTS filed a lawsuit on REYNOLDS' behalf against
23 Social Concepts on July 2, 2020, according to the San Mateo County Superior Court website.
24 42. REYNOLDS discharged the S&F DEFENDANTS from the Social Concepts action on
25 April 26, 2021, and replaced them with new counsel.
26 43. On or about June 8, 2021, SHEEHAN alone filed a Notice ofLien in the Social Concepts
27 action. However, SHEEHAN never provided REYNOLDS with a statement of time spent or
28 costs incurred in the action.
29 44. The Social Concepts action is still ongoing.
30
31

10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 2. Johnson v. Forward Leap Marketing Inc. #2
2 45. REYNOLDS may have signed a written contingency fee agreement contemplating the
3 possibility of the S&F DEFENDANTS filing a lawsuit against Forward Leap Marketing Inc.
4 ("Forward Leap") on his behalf. (The S&F DEFENDANTS did not provide REYNOLDS with
5 any copy - partially- or fully-signed - of a written contingency fee agreement for his claims
6 against Forward Leap.) But, even ifhe did sign it, the S&F DEFENDANTS never informed
7 REYNOLDS that they would actually be filing that lawsuit.
8 46. Nevertheless, the S&F DEFENDANTS filed a lawsuit on REYNOLDS' behalf against
9 Forward Leap (Forward Leap #2) on August 20, 2020, according to the Orange County Superior
10 Court website.
11 47. Apparently, this Forward Leap #2 action was identical to another action that HEIT LG
12 previously filed in Los Angeles County. DEFENDANTS never told REYNOLDS that they filed
13 two separate actions for the very same claims in two different counties by two different law firms
14 - let alone why. The S&F DEFENDANTS ultimately substituted in for REYNOLDS in the Los
15 Angeles action, and then dismissed it.
16 48. REYNOLDS discharged the S&F DEFENDANTS from the Forward Leap #2 action on
17 May 4, 2021, and replaced them with new counsel.
18 49. On or about June 15, 2021, the S&F DEFENDANTS filed a Notice of Lien in the
19 Forward Leap #2 action. However, they never provided REYNOLDS with a statement of time
20 spent or costs incurred in the action.
21 50. On July 21, 2021, REYNOLDS settled his claims in the Forward Leap #2 action, and
22 filed a Request for Dismissal on July 22.
23 3. Johnson v. Holistic Choice Labs LLC
24 51. REYNOLDS may have signed a written contingency fee agreement contemplating the
25 possibility of the S&F DEFENDANTS filing a lawsuit against Holistic Choice Labs LLC
26 ("Holistic Choice") on his behalf. (The S&F DEFENDANTS did not provide REYNOLDS with
27 any copy - partially- or fully-signed - of a written contingency fee agreement for his claims
28 against Holistic Choice.) But even ifhe did sign it, the S&F DEFENDANTS never informed
29 REYNOLDS that they would actually be filing that lawsuit.
30
31

11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
u

1 52. Nevertheless, the S&F DEFENDANTS filed a lawsuit on REYNOLDS' behalf against
2 Holistic Choice on February 8, 2021, according to the Contra Costa County Superior Court
3 website.
4 53. REYNOLDS discharged the S&F DEFENDANTS from the Holistic Choice action on
5 May 4, 2021, and replaced them with new counsel.
6 54. On or about June 9, 2021, the S&F DEFENDANTS filed a Notice of Lien in the Holistic
7 Choice action. However, they never provided REYNOLDS with a statement of time spent or
8 costs incurred in the action.
9 55. The Holistic Choice action is still ongoing.
10 D. Defendants' Liens are Extinguished, so The Notices of Attorney's Lien Filed by the
Sheehan & Feaver Defendants in the Three Lawsuits Must be Withdrawn
11
56. By filing and serving this Complaint, REYNOLDS voided a

Case Info

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 24, 2021

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