Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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
Superior Court of California,
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250 County of San Francisco
4 Orange, California 92868
Telephone: (714) 242-8588 11/19/2021
Clerk of the Court
5 Fax: (657) 235-8588 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendant ROBIN SHEEHAN

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – UNLIMITED CIVIL

11 NACE REYNOLDS, an individual; Case Nos. CGC-21-594238
12 This action is related to the action in
Plaintiff, CGC-21-594246 (“Reynolds 2”)
13
v. DEFENDANT ROBIN SHEEHAN’S
14
ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND
15 MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, and TIME UNTIL DECEMBER 17 TO FILE
individual; SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a RESPONSIVE PLEADING IN
16 (former) professional corporation; REYNOLDS 1
SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California
17 professional corporation; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; AUTHORITIES
18 HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a professional
corporation; and DOES 1-10; DECLARATIONS OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
19 AND ROBIN SHEEHAN
Defendants.
20
DATE: Monday, November 22, 2021
21 TIME: 11:00 a.m.
DEPT: 302
22

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 22, 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 granting her additional time until December 17, 2021, to file Defendant’s responsive

2 pleading in Reynolds 1.

3 This Ex Parte Application will be based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 (a)(1),

4 128 (a) and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 and 3.1320 (d). Defendant gave proper

5 notice of this Ex Parte Application prior to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 19, 2021, pursuant to

6 CRC 3.1204. (See generally Sasaki Decl.)

8 DATED: November 19, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS

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

2
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

3 On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff NACE REYNOLDS filed two related actions in this court in

4 “Reynolds 1” CGC-21-594238 and “Reynolds 2” CGC-21-594246. Both actions allege claims

5 against Defendants ROBIN SHEEHAN, Jacob Feaver, Brian Morgan Heit, and their respective law

6 firms. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 2, Exhibit A and Exhibit B -- Complaints in Reynolds 1 and 2.)

7 Initially, in both Reynolds 1 and 2, Defendant Sheehan was represented only by Jean Cha

8 and Ed Sasaki of Cha Law Ethics. But later, Defendant’s Sheehan’s insurer agreed to cover and

9 defend some or all of the claims and appointed Lewis Brisbois to represent Ms. Sheehan as to

10 Reynolds 2, with Cha Law Ethics representing Ms. Sheehan in Reynolds 1. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 3.)

11 On October 28, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant Sheehan’s counsel Lewis Brisbois

12 and Cha Law Ethics signed a stipulation and proposed order agreeing to consolidate Reynolds 1 and

13 2, to avoid any need for a demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff had improperly split related claims.

14 (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 4, Exhibit C -- Stipulation)

15 To date the court has not signed the proposed order, but Defendant Sheehan intends to bring

16 an Ex Parte Application asking the court to sign the proposed order. Once the two actions are

17 consolidated, the insurer will cover all claims in Reynolds 1 and 2, Lewis Brisbois will represent

18 Defendants Sheehan, Feaver, and their two law firms in both actions (“the Sheehan/Feaver

19 Defendants”), and Cha Law Ethics will withdraw from representing those Defendants. (Sasaki Decl.

20 at ¶ 5.)

21 On or about November 18, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to give Lewis Brisbois additional

22 time until December 17, 2021 to file their responsive pleading in Reynolds 2 for the Sheehan/Feaver

23 Defendants. However, Plaintiff’s counsel are refusing to extend the same courtesy to Cha Law

24 Ethics as to Reynolds 1. (Sasaki Decl. At ¶ 6, Exhibit D – Balsam/Graft emails; Exhibit E –

25 Balsam/Sasaki emails.) Although both Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Graft emailed Mr. Balsam on Wednesday

26 evening and Thursday afternoon asking him to extend the same courtesy on Reynolds 1, Mr. Balsam

27 failed to respond until 11:13 p.m. on Thursday evening and continued to bicker with Mr. Sasaki

28 until 12:18 a.m. at which time Mr. Balsam failed to respond to confirm that he would grant an

3
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 extension of time.

2 As Mr. Sasaki disclosed during the prior Ex Parte hearing before this court, his mother fell

3 four times last year and broke her hip. Mr. Sasaki is not only vacationing with his family but is also

4 meeting his mother in Hawaii to renew her passport and see to her financial affairs as she grows

5 increasingly senile and unable to manager her finances. This is an especially difficult time to force

6 Mr. Sasaki to respond to pleadings, particularly when Lewis Brisbois will very likely assume

7 representation of the Sheehan/Feaver Defendants going forward, if the court signs the proposed

8 order to consolidate. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 7.)

9 Because Mr. Sasaki had a full day planned related to his Hawaii vacation from November

10 13 through November 24, he had to stay up all night drafting this Ex Parte Application seeking

11 additional time to respond to Reynolds 1. Mr. Sasaki has served two notices of unavailability of

12 counsel on Mr. Balsam and Mr. Harker, yet they continue to insist on forcing him to work during

13 his Hawaii vacation. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 8, Exhibit F – Notices of Unavailability.) Intentionally

14 manufacturing an unnecessary emergency while opposing counsel is on vacation may constitute

15 sanctionable misconduct within the court’s discretion. Intentionally scheduling a conflicting

16 proceeding in bad faith or without good cause, with full knowledge of the unavailability of

17 opposing counsel, is sanctionable conduct. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Sparks (1992) 8 Cal.

18 App.4th 299, 307.)

19 There are three reasons why an extension of time would be reasonable and fair in this case.
20 First, if the court agrees to consolidate the two related cases, then Lewis Brisbois will likely become

21 the sole law firm representing the Sheehan/Feaver Defendants. So it makes no financial sense to

22 force Cha Law Ethics to file duplicative Demurrers, Motions to Strike, or Answers to Reynolds 1,

23 while also forcing Lewis Brisbois to file duplicative responsive pleadings to Reynolds 2. Second,

24 unless and until the court approves the stipulation, it is unclear whether Cha Law Ethics will have

25 to file a demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff improperly split his causes of action. Third, it is unfair

26 for Mr. Balsam and Mr. Harker to compel Mr. Sasaki to work during his Hawaii vacation, when he

27 is relaxing and attending to urgent personal affairs.

28 The history of the parties’ dealings show a pattern and practice of unfair conduct by

4
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. On September 27, 2021, Mr. Sasaki met and

2 conferred by telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker regarding a possible

3 Demurrer by Defendant Robin Sheehan. At that time, Cha Law Ethics was the sole law firm

4 representing Ms. Sheehan. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to circulate a stipulation and proposed order to

5 consolidate the two related actions. On or about October 6, 2021, Jacob Harker sent Mr. Sasaki a

6 draft stipulation and proposed order to consolidate the two actions. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 9, Exhibit G

7 – Harker email.)

8 On October 19, 2021, after soliciting input from his clients, Mr. Sasaki sent a revised

9 stipulation to Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. On October 20, 2021, Mr. Harker

10 sent Mr. Sasaki a signed stipulation, which Mr. Sasaki signed and returned to him on the same date.

11 Instead of filing the signed stipulation as they had indicated they would do, as they were in control

12 of the pleadings, Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that Mr. Sasaki needed to file the stipulation. (Sasaki

13 Decl. at ¶ 10, Exhibit H – Harker email.)

14 On October 21, 2021, Mr. Balsam asked whether Mr. Sasaki had filed the stipulation, which

15 was contrary to Mr. Sasaki’s understanding, which was that Mr. Balsam and Mr. Harker were going

16 to file the stipulation as they controlled the manner in which the pleadings were filed. (Sasaki Decl.

17 at ¶ 11, Exhibit I – Balsam/Sasaki emails.)

18 Subsequently, Robin Sheehan’s insurer accepted her tender of coverage and defense and

19 appointed counsel -- Messrs. Alex Graft and Kendall Layne of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

20 LLP -- to represent Ms. Sheehan with regard to the Legal Malpractice and related claims in Reynolds

21 1 and 2. Ms. Sheehan’s new counsel required additional time to substitute in as counsel, to review

22 the case file in this and related matters, and to review the Complaint for possible grounds for

23 Demurrer(s).

24 Although Mr. Sasaki had full authority from Ms. Sheehan to sign the stipulation on her

25 behalf and although Mr. Graft with Lewis Brisbois did not oppose the stipulation, Plaintiff’s counsel

26 Balsam and Harker then sabotaged and delayed the stipulation by withdrawing their signature on

27 the pretext that the stipulation also had to be signed by Mr. Graft. This increased Defendant

28 Sheehan;s litigation costs. (See Sheehan Declaration and Sasaki Declaration at ¶ 12, Exhibit J –

5
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 Balsam/Sasaki emails.)

2 Therefore, Defendant’s counsel respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for

3 Sheehan to file her responsive pleading in Reynolds 1 until December 17, 2021, to give Mr. Sasaki

4 time to return from his Hawaii trip and celebrate Thanksgiving before having to draft any responsive

5 pleadings, or to give Lewis Brisbois additional time to file responsive pleadings, assuming the court

6 signs the proposed order.

7 II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATIONS AND ENLARGING

8 TIME TO ANSWER OR DEMUR

9 Under CCP 473 (a)(1), the court has discretion to enlarge the time for answer or

10 demurrer. Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (c), the Sasaki Declaration contains “competent testimony

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

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

13 relief is not granted, Defendant may suffer irreparable harm if Defendant’s counsel has insufficient

14 time to review the Complaints and file demurrers, motions to strike, or an answer, which is difficult

15 to do during his Hawaii vacation from November 13 through November 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 301; People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 556; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897,

25 907; Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 190, 206-207.)

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

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

6
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 III. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE

2 APPLICATION

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

4 Application by e-mail before 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 19, 2021, which is one court day

5 before the hearing on Monday, November 22, 2021. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 13, Exhibit K.) Thus, ex

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

7 unknown whether Plaintiff’s counsel will oppose the Ex Parte Application.

8 IV. CONCLUSION

9 Defendant ROBIN SHEEHAN respectfully requests that the Court GRANT her Ex Parte

10 Application to extend the time to file her responsive pleading until December 17, 2021.

12 DATED: November 19, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS

14 By: ______________________________________
Jean Cha, Esq.
15 Ed Sasaki, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBIN SHEEHAN
16

7
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 Reynolds 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except

6 as to those matters expressly stated on information and belief. All exhibits attached to this

7 declaration are true and correct copies of the documents described herein.

8 2. On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff NACE REYNOLDS filed two related actions in this

9 court in “Reynolds 1” CGC-21-594238 and “Reynolds 2” CGC-21-594246. Both actions allege

10 claims against Defendants ROBIN SHEEHAN, Jacob Feaver, Brian Morgan Heit, and their

11 respective law firms. Copies of both Complaints in Reynolds 1 and 2, with exhibits deleted, are

12 attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

13 3. Initially, Defendant Sheehan was represented in Reynolds 1 and 2, by Jean Cha and

14 Ed Sasaki of Cha Law Ethics. But later, Ms. Sheehan’s insurer agreed to cover and defend some or

15 all of the claims and appointed Lewis Brisbois to represent Ms. Sheehan in Reynolds 2., with Cha

16 Law Ethics continuing to represent Ms. Sheehan in Reynolds 1.

17 4. On October 28, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant Sheehan’s counsel Lewis

18 Brisbois and Cha Law Ethics signed a stipulation and proposed order agreeing to consolidate

19 Reynolds 1 and 2, to avoid any need for a demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff had improperly split

20 related claims. The stipulation and proposed order (hereinafter “stipulation”) were lodged with the

21 court on or about October 29,2021 or November 1, 2021. A copy of the stipulation is attached as

22 Exhibit C.

23 5. To date the court has not signed the proposed order, but Defendant Sheehan intends

24 to bring an Ex Parte Application asking the court to sign the proposed order. Once the two actions

25 are consolidated, the insurer will cover all claims in Reynolds 1 and 2, Lewis Brisbois will represent

26 Defendants Sheehan, Feaver, and their two law firms in both actions (“the Sheehan/Feaver

27 Defendants”), and Cha Law Ethics will withdraw from representing those Defendants.

28 / / /

8
DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
1 6. On or about November 18, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to give Lewis Brisbois

2 additional time until December 17, 2021 to file their responsive pleading in Reynolds 2 for the

3 Sheehan/Feaver Defendants. However, Plaintiff’s counsel are refusing to extend the same courtesy

4 to Cha Law Ethics as to Reynolds 1. (Exhibit D – Balsam/Graft emails; Exhibit E – Balsam/Sasaki

5 emails.) Although both Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Graft emailed Mr. Balsam on Wednesday evening and

6 Thursday afternoon asking him to extend the same courtesy on Reynolds 1, Mr. Balsam failed to

7 respond until 11:13 p.m. on Thursday evening and continued to bicker with Mr. Sasaki until 12:18

8 a.m. at which time Mr. Balsam failed to respond to confirm that he would grant an extension of

9 time.

10 7. As Mr. Sasaki disclosed during the prior Ex Parte hearing before this court, his

11 mother fell four times last year and broke her hip. Mr. Sasaki is not only vacationing with his family

12 but is also meeting his mother in Hawaii to renew her passport and see to her financial affairs as she

13 grows increasingly senile and unable to manager her finances. This is an especially difficult time

14 to force Mr. Sasaki to respond to pleadings, particularly when Lewis Brisbois will very likely

15 assume representation of the Sheehan/Feaver Defendants going forward, if the court signs the

16 proposed order to consolidate.

17 8, Because Mr. Sasaki had a full day planned related to his Hawaii vacation from November

18 13 through November 24, he had to stay up all night drafting this Ex Parte Application seeking

19 additional time to respond to Reynolds 1. Mr. Sasaki has served two notices of unavailability of

20 counsel on Mr. Balsam and Mr. Harker, yet they continue to insist on forcing him to work during

21 his Hawaii vacation. (Exhibit F – Notices of Unavailability.)

22 9. The history of the parties’ dealings show a pattern and practice of unfair conduct by

23 Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. On September 27, 2021, Mr. Sasaki met and

24 conferred by telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker regarding a possible

25 Demurrer by Defendant Robin Sheehan. At that time, Cha Law Ethics was the sole law firm

26 representing Ms. Sheehan. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to circulate a stipulation and proposed order to

27 consolidate the two related actions. On or about October 6, 2021, Jacob Harker sent Mr. Sasaki a

28 draft stipulation and proposed order to consolidate the two actions. (Exhibit G – Harker email.)

9
DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
1 10. On October 19, 2021, after soliciting input from his clients, Mr. Sasaki sent a revised

2 stipulation to Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. On October 20, 2021, Mr. Harker

3 sent Mr. Sasaki a signed stipulation, which Mr. Sasaki signed and returned to him on the same date.

4 Instead of filing the signed stipulation as they had indicated they would do, as they were in control

5 of the pleadings, Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that Mr. Sasaki needed to file the stipulation. (Exhibit

6 H – Harker email.)

7 11. On October 21, 2021, Mr. Balsam asked whether Mr. Sasaki had filed the stipulation,

8 which was contrary to Mr. Sasaki’s understanding, which was that Mr. Balsam and Mr. Harker were

9 going to file the stipulation as they controlled the manner in which the pleadings were filed.

10 (Exhibit I – Balsam/Sasaki emails.)

11 12. Although Mr. Sasaki had full authority from Ms. Sheehan to sign the stipulation on

12 her behalf and although Mr. Graft with Lewis Brisbois did not oppose the stipulation, Plaintiff’s

13 counsel Balsam and Harker then sabotaged and delayed the stipulation by withdrawing their

14 signature on the pretext that the stipulation also had to be signed by Mr. Graft. This increased

15 Defendant Sheehan;s litigation costs. (See Sheehan Declaration and Sasaki Declaration at ¶ 10,

16 Exhibit J – Balsam/Sasaki emails.)

17 13. On Friday, November 19, 2021, at 5:43 a.m., I sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email

18 notifying them that I would be filing and serving this ex parte seeking a hearing and relief on

19 November 22, 2021 at 11:00 a..m. in Dept. 302. And consistent with CRC 3.1203 (a), our office

20 manager Eva Chavez provided email notice of this Ex Parte Application to Plaintiff’s counsel no

21 later than 10:00 a.m. on November 19, 2021, one court day before the hearing, which is set for

22 Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Dept. 302. The email notice included a copy of the

23 Ex Parte Application, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Sasaki and Sheehan

24 Declarations, with attached Exhibits. Copies of the email notices are attached as Exhibit K.

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

10
DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
1 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

2 true and correct,

3 Executed this 19th day of November 2021 at Honolulu, Hawaii.

5 ______________________________________
EDWIN N. SASAKI, Esq.
6

11
DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
Exhibit A
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 in

Case Info

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 19, 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