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 10/27/2021
Clerk of the Court
5 Fax: (657) 235-8588 BY: EDWARD SANTOS
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendants, BRIAN MORGAN HEIT
and HEIT LAW GROUP PC 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 CGC-21-594238 and CGC-21-594246
13 Plaintiff, THE HEIT DEFENDANTS’
14 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR
15 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; MOTION TO QUASH FROM
MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, and NOVEMBER 17 TO DECEMBER 23, OR
16 individual; SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a TO A LATER DATE
(former) professional corporation;
17 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE
professional corporation;
18 BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a professional AUTHORITIES
19 corporation; and DOES 1-10;
DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI
20 Defendants.
DECLARATION OF EVA CHAVEZ
21
22 DATE: Thursday, October 28, 2021
TIME: 11:00 a.m.
23 DEPT: 302
24
25 Action Filed: August 2, 2021
Trial Date: None Set
26
27
28
1
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Thursday, October 28, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., or as
3 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Dept. 302 of this Court, located at 400 McAllister Street,
4 San Francisco, California 94102, specially-appearing Defendants BRIAN MORGAN HEIT and
5 HEIT LAW GROUP PC will move the Court ex parte for an order continuing the hearing on their
6 Motions to Quash from November 17, 2021, until December 23, 2021, or to a later date.
7 This Ex Parte Application will be based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 (a)
8 and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 and 3.1320 (d). Defendant gave proper notice
9 of this Ex Parte Application pursuant to CRC 3.1204. (See generally Sasaki Decl.)
10
11 DATED: October 26, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS
12
13 By: ______________________________________
Jean Cha, Esq.
14 Ed Sasaki, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants, BRIAN MORGAN
15 HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP PC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
3 On October 18, 2021, Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP filed Motions to
4 Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint in Nace Reynolds 1 and 2. Pursuant to CCP 418.10
5 (b), Defendant noticed a hearing date on November 17, 2021, that is “not more than 30 days after
6 the filing of the notice.” (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 2.)
7 On October 15, 2021, prior to filing the Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Defendant’s counsel
8 met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the substance of the motions but they were
9 unable to resolve their disagreements. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to provide a 15-day extension of
10 time under CRC 3.110 (d). (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)
11 On or about October 19, 2021, Defendant’s counsel Ed Sasaki met and conferred with
12 Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. They declined to provide a and insisted that the
13 motions be set for hearing no later than November 24, 2021 pursuant to CRC 3.1320 (d). The
14 November 24 hearing date would require Defendant’s counsel to review the Opposition during the
15 two days before his Hawaii vacation and draft his Reply brief during his Hawaii vacation. Although,
16 Defendant’s counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel to extend him the professional courtesy of stipulating
17 to a mutually convenient hearing date in December or January, Plaintiff’s counsel refused. (Sasaki
18 Decl. at ¶¶ 3-7 and Exhibit B.)
19 Therefore, Defendant’s counsel respectfully requests that the Court continue the November
20 24, 2021 hearing date for the Demurrer and Motion to Strike until December 23, January 14, January
21 21, or a later date at the Court’s election, so that counsel are not required to work during the holiday
22 period.
23 Despite repeated requests, Defendant’s counsel has been unable to obtain mutually
24 convenient dates from Plaintiff’s counsel during the meet and confer process. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 7,
25 Exhibit B.)
26 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
27 Plaintiff TOMI MENDEZ alleges that Defendant attorneys HEIT, SHEEHAN, and
28 FEAVER and their respective law firms represented her in a lawsuit against National Debt Relief
3
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 LLC for spam emails that Mendez received from NDR. She alleges that her retainer and fee
2 agreement with Defendants was void because it violated Bus. & Prof. Code 6147 (a)(2) and (a)(4),
3 because it failed to state how disbursements and costs would affect the contingency fee, and because
4 it failed to state that the contingency fee was negotiable.
5 The Complaint alleges 5 causes of action for (1) Fraud or Deceit in Concealment; (2)
6 Declaratory Relief; (3) Common Counts; (4) Unfair Competition Law, and (5) Unjust Enrichment.
7 III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION AND CALENDARING
8 MOTIONS TO QUASH
9 CCP 418.10 (b) provides that “The notice shall designate, as the time for making the motion,
10 a date not more than 30 days after filing of the notice.” This requirement is not jurisdictional, but
11 advisory. Courts are encouraged to rule on such motions expeditiously, but Court may set later
12 hearing dates if the dockets conditions are crowded or for other good cause shown. (Olinick v. BMG
13 Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1296.) Nevertheless, by its plain language, CCP 418.10
14 does not expressly permit the parties to stipulate to a later hearing date. Accordingly, Defendanst
15 respectfully request that the Court issue an order continuing the hearing date.
16 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (c), the Sasaki Declaration contains “competent testimony based
17 on personal knowledge” and “make[s] an affirmative factual showing . . . of irreparable harm,
18 immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Here, if ex parte
19 relief is not granted, Defendant may suffer irreparable harm if Defendant’s counsel has insufficient
20 time to review the Opposition and prepare the Reply brief. And the Sasaki Declaration demonstrates
21 good cause for a continuance of the hearing date, which the Court is authorized to extend under the
22 plain language of CRC 3.1320 (d).
23 Furthermore, "[t]he courts have inherent and implied power to control judicial proceedings
24 in order to insure the orderly administration of justice." (People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645,
25 656.) Thus, California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 represents a statutory confirmation of the
26 court's power "[t]o provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers," of power
27 "[t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process," and power "[t]o control in furtherance
28 of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected
4
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 with a judicial proceeding before it . . . ." (California Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a)(3)-(5).) This
2 authority has been amplified by court decision. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 291,
3 301; People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 556; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897,
4 907; Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 190, 206-207.)
5 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (a), the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers
6 for Plaintiff’s counsel, Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker, are set forth in the attached proof of service.
7 IV. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE
8 APPLICATION
9 Defendant's counsel timely provided Plaintiff’s counsel with notice of the Ex Parte
10 Application by telephone and e-mail before 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 2021, which is
11 one the court day before the hearing on Thursday, October 28, 2021. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 8, Exhibit
12 C.) Thus, ex parte notice was timely provided to all parties. (California Rule of Court 3.1203 (a);
13 3.1206.) It is unknown whether Plaintiff’s counsel will oppose the Ex Parte Application.
14 V. CONCLUSION
15 Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP respectfully request that the Court
16 GRANT their Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing date for the Motions to Quash and leave
17 the deadlines for filing the Opposition and Reply briefs unchanged under CCP 1005 (b), based on
18 the prior hearing date of November 17, 2021.
19
20 DATED: October 26, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS
21
22 By: ______________________________________
Jean Cha, Esq.
23 Ed Sasaki, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBIN SHEEHAN
24
25
26
27
28
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 October 18, 2021, Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP filed
9 Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint in Nace Reynolds 1 and 2. Pursuant to
10 CCP 418.10 (b), Defendant noticed a hearing date on November 17, 2021, that is “not more than 30
11 days after the filing of the notice.”
12 3. On Friday, October 15, 2021, prior to filing the Motions to Quash, I met and
13 conferred by telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. In good faith, we
14 discussed the substantive matters raised in this Motion but we were unable to resolve our
15 disagreements or come to any resolution. Mr. Heit and his law firm were purportedly served, for the
16 first time, on or about September 18, 2021. Therefore, the initial motions were due on or about
17 October 18, 2021. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to grant my request to provide a 15-day extension of
18 time under CRC 3.110 (d) to file our responsive pleading for the Heit Defendants. That same day, I
19 sent Plaintiff’s counsel a confirming email regarding our meet and confer discussions. A copy of
20 my October 15, 2021 email chain with Plaintiff’s counsel is attached as Exhibit A.
21 3. CCP 418.10 contains no language that would permit the parties to stipulate to
22 continue the hearing date on the Motions to Quash. Therefore, I am seeking leave of court to
23 continue the hearing date from November 17, 2021, to a later date that is mutually convenient for
24 the parties.
25 4. On the noticed hearing date of November 17, 2021, I will be in Hawaii. Earlier
26 hearing dates did not work for my schedule as I had prior personal and professional commitments.
27 I will be in Hawaii with my family on a pre-planned, pre-paid vacation, from Saturday November
28 13 through Saturday November 20. During that time it will be difficult for me to appear at morning
6
DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI
1 hearings because of the 3-hour time difference. To attend a hearing at 9:30 a.m. in California would
2 require me to get up before 6:30 a.m. and any zoom call or court call discussions would wake up
3 my family. I asked Plaintiff’s counsel for the professional courtesy of providing me with a 15-day
4 extension of time, under CRC 3.110 (d), to file the Heit Defendants’ responsive pleading, but they
5 declined.
6 5. Furthermore, if the hearing is held on November 24, 2021, then the Opposition brief
7 will be due on November 10, 2021, only two days before my trip for Hawaii. The following day,
8 November 11, 2021 is a court holiday. My Reply brief will be due on November 17, 2021, while I
9 am still in Hawaii, which will require me to draft the Reply brief during the brief time before my
10 trip or during my trip itself, which will largely ruin the trip for me and my family.
11 6. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing on the Motions
12 to Quash from November 17, 2021, until December 23, 2021, or dates thereafter.
13 7. I am unable to present the court with mutually convenient dates for counsel in
14 December because Plaintiff’s counsel have not yet responded to my emails asking them to meet and
15 confer or to provide alternative dates in December. Copies of my emails to Plaintiff’s counsel are
16 attached as Exhibit B.
17 8. On Monday, October 25, 2021, at 2:47 p.m., I sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email asking
18 them to further meet and confer with me regarding the Ex Parte Application. On Tuesday, October
19 26, 2021 at 11:25 a.m., I sent Plaintiff’s counsel a follow-up email asking them to provide me with
20 dates in December and January when they are available to appear for the hearing. Copies of my
21 emails are attached as Exhibit C. As of 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, I had received no response from
22 Plaintiff’s counsel. However, they did send me an email on Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:29 p.m.
23 regarding a related lawsuit that they filed against Defendant Robin Sheehan in San Mateo County,
24 even though they knew or reasonably should have known that Ms. Sheehan lives and works in the
25 City and County of San Francisco County. A copy of Mr. Balsam’s email, with a carbon copy to
26 Mr. Harker, is attached as Exhibit D.
27 ///
28 ///
7
DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI
1 9. Consistent with CRC 3.1203 (a), our office manager Eva Chavez provided telephonic
2 and email notice of this Ex Parte application to Plaintiff’s counsel no later than 10:00 a.m. on
3 October 27, 2021, one court day before the hearing, which is set for Thursday, October 28, 2021 at
4 11:00 a.m. in Dept. 302. The email notice included a copy of the Ex Parte Application, the
5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Sasaki and Chavez Declarations, with attached
6 Exhibits. A copy of the email notice is attached as Exhibit E.
7
8 I declare under penalty of perjury for the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
9 true and correct,
10 Executed this 26th day of October 2021 at Irvine, CA.
11
12 ______________________________________
EDWIN N. SASAKI, Esq.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI
Exhibit A
Ed Sasaki
From: Dan Balsam
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 3:14 PM
To: Ed Sasaki; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Ed,
It will facilitate our communications if you can properly keep track of your clients.
As far as service on ***Heit Law Group PC*** is concerned, I refer you to B&P Code 17538.5(c) and (d).
Thank you,
Dan
From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:50 PM
To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Dear Dan and Jacob,
Just to clarify, in my prior emails I meant to refer to improper service on Defendant Heit Law Group PC, as opposed to
service on Defendant Brian Heit.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Ed Sasaki
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:12 PM
To: Dan Balsam ; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
1
Dear Dan,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your position to me.
Please let me know if you believe whether further meet and confer efforts would be productive and whether there is
some compromise that we can discuss to avoid filing a motion to quash.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Dan Balsam
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:09 PM
To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Ed,
On 9/24 at 10:02 am, I specifically asked you "Are you authorized to accept service of process and any other documents
on behalf of everyone that you represent?"
On 9/24 at 4:35 pm, you responded:
I have not discussed this issue with the clients. So I do not have authority to accept service. But I can asks them if
necessary.
This is why I asked you more than once to please send me the Proofs of Service in Nace Reynolds, so I can determine
whether there was good service and whether we need to file a motion to quash, or whether we can reach some sort of
alternative agreement.
I need to know if Defendants have been served, if service was valid, and whether we need to file a motion to quash or
discuss the possibility of accepting service.
But you have not yet provided Proofs of Service, so I cannot calculate an accurate deadlines for filing responsive
pleadings or completing the meet and confer process. And you said you do not want to discuss anything other than the
Demurrers during the call on Monday.
So how can we make any progress on such a simple issue without your cooperation?
2
It would have been more productive if, in those 6.5 hours, you had asked your clients if you had the authority to accept
service, rather than simply responding that you hadn't even asked them.
On 9/27 at 11:13 am, I sent you the POSs for all defendants who had been served at that point, which were Sheehan and
Heit Law Group in both cases.
On 9/27 at 11:31 am, you acknowledged receipt of those four POSs.
=====
I reject your insinuation below that the burden was MINE to follow up with you. I asked you a direct question, you gave a
non-answer (because you hadn't even asked your clients yet), and then you never gave any further answer, one way or
the other. I had no "obligation" to "negotiate an agreement [with you] to accept service." I asked you a question, you
didn't answer it. On the other hand, you could have offered to accept service if it were done by notice & acknowledgment
rather than personal service, which would have given you more time. But I'm not going to attempt to negotiate specific
terms of service when you never confirmed that you were authorized to accept service (by any means). That's analogous
to me trying to negotiate the price of buying a car when we haven't even established that you were authorized to sell me
the car. Again, high on the "silly scale," and this entire situation is, in fact, your fault.
As far as I can tell, my process server properly substitute-served Brian Heit under CCP 415.20(c).
Dan
From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Dan,
I never refused to accept service. I said I had no authority to accept service and had not discussed it with my client. Then
you never followed up.
You never asked me if we could negotiate an agreement to accept service. I would have considered it and presented it
to my client.
As far as I can tell, your process server did not take the proper steps to effect good service. That is not my fault.
Do you have any suggestions to avoid having to file a motion by the statutory deadline? I have spent much of my time
responding to your requests for documents.
Do you still contend substituted service on Brian Heit was legally proper? Would you like to discuss this by telephone?
Or shall we continue our discussion by email? Whichever you prefer is acceptable to me.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
3
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Dan Balsam
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:46 PM
To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Ed,
I remind you that Harker and I previously asked you if you (Cha) would accept service for Heit, Heit Law Group PC,
Sheehan, Feaver, Sheehan Law Group PC, and Sheehan & Feaver PC. If you had agreed to do so, we could have
avoided this dispute (which ranks a "10" on the silly scale), and you could have even gotten an automatic extra 20 days if
we had served you (Cha) by notice & acknowledgment via US Mail. But you chose to refuse to accept service on behalf
of the clients that you represent. That's fine, so we hired process servers to serve (substitute-serve) them instead. I refer
you again to CCP 415.20(c). You play games with service at your and your clients' peril.
Dan
From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Dear Dan,
If you are well aware that actual knowledge is insufficient, then why did you raise it? (See your email below sent at
12:47 p.m. on Oct. 15, 2021.)
My understanding is that the person you claimed to have served is not Brian’s employee or staff member. He doesn’t
work in Brian’s office. I am not sure exactly who he is. But I don’t think, for example, that substitute serving a janitor,
security guard, or gardener in a building where an attorney maintains his office is good substituted service.
I believe the papers must be personally handed to someone in charge, not of the building, but of the actual physical law
office of the person you are trying to serve. There may be 100 offices in a building. I think you need to serve it on
someone who is in charge of and actually works in the specific office of the person you are trying to serve, such as the
attorney’s paralegal, partner, or associate. If that wasn’t a physical office, but a virtual office, then I think you have to
personally serve someone at his residence or try to find a physical work address if one exists.
Why do you think it’s good service if it’s a virtual office? It doesn’t satisfy the physical-service component of substituted
service.
CCP 425.20 says that a hard copy has to be left with a PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE OFFICE. And it also says that you
cannot serve someone at a US Postal Service post office box, which suggests that substituted service cannot be made on
a virtual office either, because no one who actually works with the person or law firm you are trying to serve is physically
there.
4
Does that make sense?
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Dan Balsam
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:11 PM
To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Ed,
I am well aware that actual knowledge is insufficient and formal service is required. I'm merely pointing out that actual
knowledge is undisputed.
Heit Law Group PC appears to not have an actual office. The address on file with the Secretary of State for Heit Law
Group PC in Walnut is a commercial mail receiving agency. I don't know any other address for Brian Heit, other than his
"office." Accordingly, Brian Heit was substitute-served at his "office" in accordance with CCP 415.20(c).
Dan Balsam
From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Dear Dan,
I am not sure why you are mentioning constructive or actual notice of the lawsuit through service on co-Defendants.
That doesn’t seem to be relevant. My understanding is that the statutes require proper service in strict compliance with
the statutory requirements.
For example, I don’t think you can call Brian on the phone and ask him to look in the Court docket. That puts him on
notice of the lawsuit, but it’s not personal service, and it’s not proper substituted service. Does that make sense?
I don’t think it was personally served on Brian Heit.
5
And if it was served by substituted service, it needs to be served on a person responsible for the office, an employee or
staff member for example. It wasn’t served on Brian, or his paralegal, or staff.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Dan Balsam
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Ed,
Yoiu/Heit obviously have actual knowlege of both Nace Reynolds lawsuits. Please explain precisely why you think service
was bad.
Thank you,
Dan
From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker'
Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST
Dear Dan and Jacob,
I would like to schedule a time to meet and confer with you regarding service on Brian Heit in the Nace Reynolds action.
It is our position that service was not properly effected.
My deadline to file is on Monday, October 18. But if we could speak briefly before then I would appreciate it.
Or if you are able to extend our filing deadline by 15 days, please let me know.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
6
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
7
Exhibit B
Ed Sasaki
From: Ed Sasaki
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:57 PM
To: Jacob Harker
Cc: Dan Balsam; Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules
Dear Jacob,
Your statement that our office took on more work than it is able to handle is inaccurate. And it is not helpful to the meet
and confer dialogue.
I mentioned that I am on vacation in November. I will be drafting and arguing the motions for our firm.
I provided you with several dates in December. Would you please advise as to your availability during that time.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Jacob Harker
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:05 PM
To: Ed Sasaki
Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules
Ed,
If you can't handle the 3 motions on the same day, perhaps Jean can do the ones you can't handle and schedule
them all for November 17 or the week of November 22. As we have discussed many times, the fact that your office took
on more work than it is able to handle is not our problem. Alternatively, Dan and I are available on November 15, 16,
18, and 19. You are required to calendar the motion within 35 days of filing, so, please calendar the motion on one of
those dates. Thank you.
- Jacob
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:42 PM Ed Sasaki wrote:
Dear Jacob,
1
I will be on vacation during Thanksgiving time. My first available dates would be on December 10, 17, and 23.
I am unable to cover two three motions on Nov. 17.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Jacob Harker
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Ed Sasaki
Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules
Ed,
You are similarly required by statute to calendar a demurrer within 35 days of filing.
2
As for the remainder of your email, I'll say it again - actions speak louder than words.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding your available dates within 35 days of filing your proposed demurrer.
Thank you.
- Jacob
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:08 PM Ed Sasaki wrote:
Dear Jacob,
This entire email chain has been devoted to a discussion of the Demurrer and Motion to Strike in Tomi Mendez. You
did not ask for hearing dates regarding the Motion to Quash.
For the motion to quash, I was required by statute, CCP 418.10 (b), to calendar a date within 30 days after the filing
deadline of October 18, 2021.
If you and Dan prefer to have it heard on an earlier date, please let me know as soon as possible what dates work best
for you, and perhaps we can submit a stip and order to move the date earlier.
Thank you
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
3
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Jacob Harker
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:35 PM
To: Ed Sasaki
Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez
Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules
Ed,
As to your first point, San Francisco Local Rules state that parties filing a motion should coordinate with the other
side. When you said I told you incorrect information, you were both wrong and suggesting that I made a
misrepresentation to you. Regardless, you said that you would coordinate dates with us, which you obviously had no
intention of doing because you filed Brian and HLG's motions to quash without coordinating hearing dates.
As to your second point, there should be nothing to discuss. If you really intended on working together with us to
schedule hearing dates, you would simply do that - regardless of what the rules state. You obviously never had any
such intention because you filed Brian and HLG's motions to quash without coordinating hearing dates with us in
advance.
As to your third point, your research was apparently inadequate insofar as you failed to discover the rule regarding
coordinating hearing dates for law and motion matters. Regardless, it doesn't matter because your statement that
you are "always interested in cooperating to the fullest degree to schedule hearing dates that work for all parties" is
patently false for your failure to do just that with regard to the aforementioned motions to quash. Indeed, your email
suggesting that you would "always" work together to coordinate dates within 24 hours of you not coordinating dates
can be described best as gaslighting. As you know, actions speak louder than words. Your actions indicate that you
never had any intention to coordinate hearing dates.
As to your fourth point, as I said in my email of October 16, I am happy to continue the discussion of an extension
to respond in the Mendez case. I simply asked you for a timeline of file production from you first because it was that
very file production that you cited as a reason for requiring more time to draft the demurrer. You seem to have
ignored that email. Again you falsely state that you "continue to express every professional courtesy." But, as
mentioned above, you didn't do that for the motions to quash. As for your desire to work together with Dan and me, I
would suggest doing what you say you'll do (i.e. coordinating dates) as opposed to doing the opposite of what you say
you'll do. Also, it would help if you stopped falsely alleging that we made misrepresentations to you.
4
As to your fifth point, you've got to be kidding me. You filed the motions to quash without coordinating it with me
and Dan after you repeatedly (and still) claim that you were willing to coordinate dates with us. Again, you are simply
gaslighting us.
As to your sixth point, a demurrer must be heard within 35 days of its filing (C.R.C. 3.1320(d)). SInce (as you know)
San Francisco has an open calendaring system, any demurrer must be calendared before November 25. Since we all
know everyone is going to be in court on November 17, why don't we calendar it for that date? Otherwise, please
provide your available dates before November 25.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding the coordination of calendaring this and any other motion you may
wish to file in any case for any party you represent.
Thank you.
- Jacob
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:43 AM Ed Sasaki wrote:
Dear Jacob,
I hope all is well.
Please allow me to correct several statements in your prior email, relating to our meet and confer discussions on the
Demurrer and Motion to Strike in the Tomi Mendez matter.
First, during our meet and confer discussions, you and Dan represented that there is a Local Rule requiring that we
meet and confer regarding the scheduling of hearing dates for a motion to quash. I found a Local Rule relating to
5
discovery motions, but none relating to motions to quash. At no time have I accused you of any intentional
misrepresentation, as is clear from my prior emails below.
Second, as you and Dan raised this point during our meet and confer discussions under CCP 430.41 and the Local
Rules, I wanted to clarify your position. If you do not wish to discuss it further, I respect your wishes. I remain
interested in extending to you any professional courtesy. In addition, if this also comports with a mandate under a
Local Rule, I was interested in hearing about it for my own reference and benefit. We were able to address
Defendants’ concerns and concluded our meet and confer discussions on this point, after you indicated that you
decline to further meet and confer on this issue.
Third, your statements that I have not done any research or am trying to get you to do my research are both
inaccurate. As I mentioned, my research on this issue found no applicable Local Rule mandating a meet and confer
process to set hearing dates for non-discovery motions. However, I do wish to make it clear that I am always
interested in cooperating to the fullest degree to schedule hearing dates that work for all parties. I merely asked, as a
professional courtesy, whether you were aware of the specific Local Rule that supports your representation that I am
required to clear non-discovery hearing dates with you. This was not intended as an accusation directed at you or
Dan. After you declined to provide a specific Local Rule and I was not able to find one, I shared my findings with you
when you did not respond to my question. I viewed this as amiably trying to cooperate and share information
between counsel in the interest of civility and professionalism.
Fourth, on several occasions, you and Dan have declined to extend Defendants the professional courtesy of a 15-day
extension of time to respond in Nace Reynolds and Tomi Mendez. Though this may be at your client’s direction, I do
not take offense to your position. To be clear, on behalf of my clients, I am still interested in discussing hearing dates
for the Tomi Mendez Demurrer and Motion to Strike hearings. My hope is that as I continue to express every
professional courtesy, that you will reciprocate in turn. I find that matters move more smoothly when counsel are
able to cooperate to the best of their ability.
Fifth, I look forward to discussing possible hearing dates that work for your client and your schedules. Pardon any
misunderstanding if you were left with the impression that I was unwilling to offer you this courtesy. If you review my
emails below, you will find that I have always been open to coordinating dates that work for your calendars and
mine.
Sixth, please let me know if you and Dan are available on January 7, 14, or 21, 2022, for a hearing on the Demurrer
and Motion to Strike in Tomi Mendez.
Thank you,
Ed
6
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Jacob Harker
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Ed Sasaki
Cc: Dan Balsam ; Eva Chavez ; Jean Cha
Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- HEARING DATE -- SF Local Rules
Ed,
This is the second time in a day that you have falsely accused me of misrepresentation. Please discontinue such
unprofessional behavior - especially when you are seeking my professional courtesies (i.e. extensions of time, that I
do your research for you, etc.).
I understood that you were under time pressure because your office took on more work than it could handle with
respect to the matters involving Dan's and my offices. It seems that you are electing to spend your precious time
casting stones, "winning" a ridiculous argument, and having the last word.
As for your "simple question," which appears to be a request that I do the research that you were unable to do, I
refer you to Ms. Cha's email of May 13 where I asked a "simple question," and she responded, "You may wish to
confirm this by conducting your own research on behalf of your client."
7
As I said before, if you really meant what you said that you would prefer to coordinate scheduling, then this entire
thread is a pointless waste of time and has only served to drive us further from the ultimate objective, which is that
we should be working together.
Although I doubt you'll be able to drop this and move on to matters of actual concern, I'd appreciate it if you did.
Thank you.
- Jacob
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:34 PM Ed Sasaki wrote:
Dear Jacob,
Two things. You didn’t answer my question. And I never said I would not try to coordinate dates with you. First, I am
trying to clarify apparently incorrect information that you and Dan gave me.
I only asked you a simple question. You and Dan told me that there was a local rule mandating that I coordinate
dates with you. That seems to be incorrect.
I found a rule for discovery motions. Are you aware of any rule that asks counsel to coordinate the hearing dates for
non-discovery motions?
A simple yes or no would be appreciated.
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
8
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
From: Jacob Harker
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:15 PM
To: Ed Sasaki
Cc: Dan Balsam ; Eva Chavez ; Jean Cha
Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- HEARING DATE -- SF Local Rules
Ed,
It seems like you are taking the position that you will not coordinate the hearing date with us absent a rule
requiring you to do so. If I am wrong, we can just forget this entire thread, in which case I look forward to hearing
from you regarding your proposed dates for the hearing. Thank you.
- Jacob
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:05 PM Ed Sasaki wrote:
Dear Dan and Jacob,
You mentioned that I am required to meet and confer with you to pick a mutually acceptable hearing date under
the Local Rules.
But this is the only rule I can find.
Are you aware of any other rules that expressly apply to Demurrers, Motions to Strike, or Motion to Quash. This
only seems to apply to discovery motions.
9
10 Discovery and Civil Miscellaneous
10.0 Discovery and Other Hearings in the Civil Discovery Department
C. Calendaring Noticed Motions.
Reservations are not required to calendar a discovery motion.
A party filing a motion to be heard in the Discovery Department may select a hearing date after conferring with all
opposing parties in an effort to choose a date that is mutually agreeable to all parties affected by the motion.
Noticed motions are heard Monday through Friday at 9:00 am.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETHICS
1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Office (714) 242-8588
Cell (559) 213-5605
ed@chalawethics.com
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472
Irvine, CA 92618
10
--
Law Offices of Jacob Harker
268 Bush St. #3732
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 624-7602
Fax: (415) 684-7757
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to
this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any
printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602
--
Law Offices of Jacob Harker
268 Bush St. #3732
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 624-7602
Fax: (415) 684-7757
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this
message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any
printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602
--
11
Law Offices of Jacob Harker
268 Bush St. #3732
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 624-7602
Fax: (415) 684-7757
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this
message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any
printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602
--
Law Offices of Jacob Harker
268 Bush St. #3732
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 624-7602
Fax: (415) 684-7757
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this
message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout
thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602
--
Law Offices of Jacob Harker
268 Bush St. #3732
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 624-7602
Fax: (415) 684-7757
12
Notice of Confidentiality:
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this
message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout
thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602
13
Ed Sasaki
From: Ed Sasaki
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:46 PM
To: Jacob Harker
Cc: Dan Balsam; Jean Cha; Eva Chavez
Subject: RE: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules
Dear Jacob,
Earlier dates won’t work for my schedule.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Sasaki
Senior Attorney
CHA LAW ETH
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 10/27/2021 Clerk of the Court 5 Fax: (657) 235-8588 BY: EDWARD SANTOS Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendants, BRIAN MORGAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP PC 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 CGC-21-594238 and CGC-21-594246 13 Plaintiff, THE HEIT DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR 15 ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, an individual; MOTION TO QUASH FROM MATTHEW JACOB FEAVER, and NOVEMBER 17 TO DECEMBER 23, OR 16 individual; SHEEHAN LAW GROUP PC, a TO A LATER DATE (former) professional corporation; 17 SHEEHAN & FEAVER PC, a California BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE professional corporation; 18 BRIAN MORGAN HEIT, an individual; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND HEIT LAW GROUP PC, a professional AUTHORITIES 19 corporation; and DOES 1-10; DECLARATION OF EDWIN N. SASAKI 20 Defendants. DECLARATION OF EVA CHAVEZ 21 22 DATE: Thursday, October 28, 2021 TIME: 11:00 a.m. 23 DEPT: 302 24 25 Action Filed: August 2, 2021 Trial Date: None Set 26 27 28 1 EX PARTE APPLICATION 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Thursday, October 28, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., or as 3 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Dept. 302 of this Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, 4 San Francisco, California 94102, specially-appearing Defendants BRIAN MORGAN HEIT and 5 HEIT LAW GROUP PC will move the Court ex parte for an order continuing the hearing on their 6 Motions to Quash from November 17, 2021, until December 23, 2021, or to a later date. 7 This Ex Parte Application will be based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 (a) 8 and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 and 3.1320 (d). Defendant gave proper notice 9 of this Ex Parte Application pursuant to CRC 3.1204. (See generally Sasaki Decl.) 10 11 DATED: October 26, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS 12 13 By: ______________________________________ Jean Cha, Esq. 14 Ed Sasaki, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, BRIAN MORGAN 15 HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP PC 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 EX PARTE APPLICATION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 3 On October 18, 2021, Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP filed Motions to 4 Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint in Nace Reynolds 1 and 2. Pursuant to CCP 418.10 5 (b), Defendant noticed a hearing date on November 17, 2021, that is “not more than 30 days after 6 the filing of the notice.” (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 2.) 7 On October 15, 2021, prior to filing the Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Defendant’s counsel 8 met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the substance of the motions but they were 9 unable to resolve their disagreements. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to provide a 15-day extension of 10 time under CRC 3.110 (d). (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) 11 On or about October 19, 2021, Defendant’s counsel Ed Sasaki met and conferred with 12 Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. They declined to provide a and insisted that the 13 motions be set for hearing no later than November 24, 2021 pursuant to CRC 3.1320 (d). The 14 November 24 hearing date would require Defendant’s counsel to review the Opposition during the 15 two days before his Hawaii vacation and draft his Reply brief during his Hawaii vacation. Although, 16 Defendant’s counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel to extend him the professional courtesy of stipulating 17 to a mutually convenient hearing date in December or January, Plaintiff’s counsel refused. (Sasaki 18 Decl. at ¶¶ 3-7 and Exhibit B.) 19 Therefore, Defendant’s counsel respectfully requests that the Court continue the November 20 24, 2021 hearing date for the Demurrer and Motion to Strike until December 23, January 14, January 21 21, or a later date at the Court’s election, so that counsel are not required to work during the holiday 22 period. 23 Despite repeated requests, Defendant’s counsel has been unable to obtain mutually 24 convenient dates from Plaintiff’s counsel during the meet and confer process. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 7, 25 Exhibit B.) 26 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 27 Plaintiff TOMI MENDEZ alleges that Defendant attorneys HEIT, SHEEHAN, and 28 FEAVER and their respective law firms represented her in a lawsuit against National Debt Relief 3 EX PARTE APPLICATION 1 LLC for spam emails that Mendez received from NDR. She alleges that her retainer and fee 2 agreement with Defendants was void because it violated Bus. & Prof. Code 6147 (a)(2) and (a)(4), 3 because it failed to state how disbursements and costs would affect the contingency fee, and because 4 it failed to state that the contingency fee was negotiable. 5 The Complaint alleges 5 causes of action for (1) Fraud or Deceit in Concealment; (2) 6 Declaratory Relief; (3) Common Counts; (4) Unfair Competition Law, and (5) Unjust Enrichment. 7 III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION AND CALENDARING 8 MOTIONS TO QUASH 9 CCP 418.10 (b) provides that “The notice shall designate, as the time for making the motion, 10 a date not more than 30 days after filing of the notice.” This requirement is not jurisdictional, but 11 advisory. Courts are encouraged to rule on such motions expeditiously, but Court may set later 12 hearing dates if the dockets conditions are crowded or for other good cause shown. (Olinick v. BMG 13 Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1296.) Nevertheless, by its plain language, CCP 418.10 14 does not expressly permit the parties to stipulate to a later hearing date. Accordingly, Defendanst 15 respectfully request that the Court issue an order continuing the hearing date. 16 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (c), the Sasaki Declaration contains “competent testimony based 17 on personal knowledge” and “make[s] an affirmative factual showing . . . of irreparable harm, 18 immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Here, if ex parte 19 relief is not granted, Defendant may suffer irreparable harm if Defendant’s counsel has insufficient 20 time to review the Opposition and prepare the Reply brief. And the Sasaki Declaration demonstrates 21 good cause for a continuance of the hearing date, which the Court is authorized to extend under the 22 plain language of CRC 3.1320 (d). 23 Furthermore, "[t]he courts have inherent and implied power to control judicial proceedings 24 in order to insure the orderly administration of justice." (People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645, 25 656.) Thus, California Code of Civil Procedure § 128 represents a statutory confirmation of the 26 court's power "[t]o provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers," of power 27 "[t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process," and power "[t]o control in furtherance 28 of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected 4 EX PARTE APPLICATION 1 with a judicial proceeding before it . . . ." (California Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a)(3)-(5).) This 2 authority has been amplified by court decision. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 291, 3 301; People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 556; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897, 4 907; Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 190, 206-207.) 5 Pursuant to CRC 3.1202 (a), the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers 6 for Plaintiff’s counsel, Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker, are set forth in the attached proof of service. 7 IV. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE 8 APPLICATION 9 Defendant's counsel timely provided Plaintiff’s counsel with notice of the Ex Parte 10 Application by telephone and e-mail before 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27, 2021, which is 11 one the court day before the hearing on Thursday, October 28, 2021. (Sasaki Decl. at ¶ 8, Exhibit 12 C.) Thus, ex parte notice was timely provided to all parties. (California Rule of Court 3.1203 (a); 13 3.1206.) It is unknown whether Plaintiff’s counsel will oppose the Ex Parte Application. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP respectfully request that the Court 16 GRANT their Ex Parte Application to continue the hearing date for the Motions to Quash and leave 17 the deadlines for filing the Opposition and Reply briefs unchanged under CCP 1005 (b), based on 18 the prior hearing date of November 17, 2021. 19 20 DATED: October 26, 2021 CHA LAW ETHICS 21 22 By: ______________________________________ Jean Cha, Esq. 23 Ed Sasaki, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, ROBIN SHEEHAN 24 25 26 27 28 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 October 18, 2021, Defendants BRIAN HEIT and HEIT LAW GROUP filed 9 Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint in Nace Reynolds 1 and 2. Pursuant to 10 CCP 418.10 (b), Defendant noticed a hearing date on November 17, 2021, that is “not more than 30 11 days after the filing of the notice.” 12 3. On Friday, October 15, 2021, prior to filing the Motions to Quash, I met and 13 conferred by telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel Dan Balsam and Jacob Harker. In good faith, we 14 discussed the substantive matters raised in this Motion but we were unable to resolve our 15 disagreements or come to any resolution. Mr. Heit and his law firm were purportedly served, for the 16 first time, on or about September 18, 2021. Therefore, the initial motions were due on or about 17 October 18, 2021. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to grant my request to provide a 15-day extension of 18 time under CRC 3.110 (d) to file our responsive pleading for the Heit Defendants. That same day, I 19 sent Plaintiff’s counsel a confirming email regarding our meet and confer discussions. A copy of 20 my October 15, 2021 email chain with Plaintiff’s counsel is attached as Exhibit A. 21 3. CCP 418.10 contains no language that would permit the parties to stipulate to 22 continue the hearing date on the Motions to Quash. Therefore, I am seeking leave of court to 23 continue the hearing date from November 17, 2021, to a later date that is mutually convenient for 24 the parties. 25 4. On the noticed hearing date of November 17, 2021, I will be in Hawaii. Earlier 26 hearing dates did not work for my schedule as I had prior personal and professional commitments. 27 I will be in Hawaii with my family on a pre-planned, pre-paid vacation, from Saturday November 28 13 through Saturday November 20. During that time it will be difficult for me to appear at morning 6 DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI 1 hearings because of the 3-hour time difference. To attend a hearing at 9:30 a.m. in California would 2 require me to get up before 6:30 a.m. and any zoom call or court call discussions would wake up 3 my family. I asked Plaintiff’s counsel for the professional courtesy of providing me with a 15-day 4 extension of time, under CRC 3.110 (d), to file the Heit Defendants’ responsive pleading, but they 5 declined. 6 5. Furthermore, if the hearing is held on November 24, 2021, then the Opposition brief 7 will be due on November 10, 2021, only two days before my trip for Hawaii. The following day, 8 November 11, 2021 is a court holiday. My Reply brief will be due on November 17, 2021, while I 9 am still in Hawaii, which will require me to draft the Reply brief during the brief time before my 10 trip or during my trip itself, which will largely ruin the trip for me and my family. 11 6. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing on the Motions 12 to Quash from November 17, 2021, until December 23, 2021, or dates thereafter. 13 7. I am unable to present the court with mutually convenient dates for counsel in 14 December because Plaintiff’s counsel have not yet responded to my emails asking them to meet and 15 confer or to provide alternative dates in December. Copies of my emails to Plaintiff’s counsel are 16 attached as Exhibit B. 17 8. On Monday, October 25, 2021, at 2:47 p.m., I sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email asking 18 them to further meet and confer with me regarding the Ex Parte Application. On Tuesday, October 19 26, 2021 at 11:25 a.m., I sent Plaintiff’s counsel a follow-up email asking them to provide me with 20 dates in December and January when they are available to appear for the hearing. Copies of my 21 emails are attached as Exhibit C. As of 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, I had received no response from 22 Plaintiff’s counsel. However, they did send me an email on Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:29 p.m. 23 regarding a related lawsuit that they filed against Defendant Robin Sheehan in San Mateo County, 24 even though they knew or reasonably should have known that Ms. Sheehan lives and works in the 25 City and County of San Francisco County. A copy of Mr. Balsam’s email, with a carbon copy to 26 Mr. Harker, is attached as Exhibit D. 27 /// 28 /// 7 DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI 1 9. Consistent with CRC 3.1203 (a), our office manager Eva Chavez provided telephonic 2 and email notice of this Ex Parte application to Plaintiff’s counsel no later than 10:00 a.m. on 3 October 27, 2021, one court day before the hearing, which is set for Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 4 11:00 a.m. in Dept. 302. The email notice included a copy of the Ex Parte Application, the 5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Sasaki and Chavez Declarations, with attached 6 Exhibits. A copy of the email notice is attached as Exhibit E. 7 8 I declare under penalty of perjury for the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 9 true and correct, 10 Executed this 26th day of October 2021 at Irvine, CA. 11 12 ______________________________________ EDWIN N. SASAKI, Esq. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DECLARATION OF EDWIN SASAKI Exhibit A Ed Sasaki From: Dan Balsam Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 3:14 PM To: Ed Sasaki; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Ed, It will facilitate our communications if you can properly keep track of your clients. As far as service on ***Heit Law Group PC*** is concerned, I refer you to B&P Code 17538.5(c) and (d). Thank you, Dan From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:50 PM To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Dear Dan and Jacob, Just to clarify, in my prior emails I meant to refer to improper service on Defendant Heit Law Group PC, as opposed to service on Defendant Brian Heit. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Ed Sasaki Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:12 PM To: Dan Balsam ; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST 1 Dear Dan, Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your position to me. Please let me know if you believe whether further meet and confer efforts would be productive and whether there is some compromise that we can discuss to avoid filing a motion to quash. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Dan Balsam Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 2:09 PM To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Ed, On 9/24 at 10:02 am, I specifically asked you "Are you authorized to accept service of process and any other documents on behalf of everyone that you represent?" On 9/24 at 4:35 pm, you responded: I have not discussed this issue with the clients. So I do not have authority to accept service. But I can asks them if necessary. This is why I asked you more than once to please send me the Proofs of Service in Nace Reynolds, so I can determine whether there was good service and whether we need to file a motion to quash, or whether we can reach some sort of alternative agreement. I need to know if Defendants have been served, if service was valid, and whether we need to file a motion to quash or discuss the possibility of accepting service. But you have not yet provided Proofs of Service, so I cannot calculate an accurate deadlines for filing responsive pleadings or completing the meet and confer process. And you said you do not want to discuss anything other than the Demurrers during the call on Monday. So how can we make any progress on such a simple issue without your cooperation? 2 It would have been more productive if, in those 6.5 hours, you had asked your clients if you had the authority to accept service, rather than simply responding that you hadn't even asked them. On 9/27 at 11:13 am, I sent you the POSs for all defendants who had been served at that point, which were Sheehan and Heit Law Group in both cases. On 9/27 at 11:31 am, you acknowledged receipt of those four POSs. ===== I reject your insinuation below that the burden was MINE to follow up with you. I asked you a direct question, you gave a non-answer (because you hadn't even asked your clients yet), and then you never gave any further answer, one way or the other. I had no "obligation" to "negotiate an agreement [with you] to accept service." I asked you a question, you didn't answer it. On the other hand, you could have offered to accept service if it were done by notice & acknowledgment rather than personal service, which would have given you more time. But I'm not going to attempt to negotiate specific terms of service when you never confirmed that you were authorized to accept service (by any means). That's analogous to me trying to negotiate the price of buying a car when we haven't even established that you were authorized to sell me the car. Again, high on the "silly scale," and this entire situation is, in fact, your fault. As far as I can tell, my process server properly substitute-served Brian Heit under CCP 415.20(c). Dan From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:54 PM To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Dan, I never refused to accept service. I said I had no authority to accept service and had not discussed it with my client. Then you never followed up. You never asked me if we could negotiate an agreement to accept service. I would have considered it and presented it to my client. As far as I can tell, your process server did not take the proper steps to effect good service. That is not my fault. Do you have any suggestions to avoid having to file a motion by the statutory deadline? I have spent much of my time responding to your requests for documents. Do you still contend substituted service on Brian Heit was legally proper? Would you like to discuss this by telephone? Or shall we continue our discussion by email? Whichever you prefer is acceptable to me. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 3 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Dan Balsam Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:46 PM To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Ed, I remind you that Harker and I previously asked you if you (Cha) would accept service for Heit, Heit Law Group PC, Sheehan, Feaver, Sheehan Law Group PC, and Sheehan & Feaver PC. If you had agreed to do so, we could have avoided this dispute (which ranks a "10" on the silly scale), and you could have even gotten an automatic extra 20 days if we had served you (Cha) by notice & acknowledgment via US Mail. But you chose to refuse to accept service on behalf of the clients that you represent. That's fine, so we hired process servers to serve (substitute-serve) them instead. I refer you again to CCP 415.20(c). You play games with service at your and your clients' peril. Dan From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:31 PM To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Dear Dan, If you are well aware that actual knowledge is insufficient, then why did you raise it? (See your email below sent at 12:47 p.m. on Oct. 15, 2021.) My understanding is that the person you claimed to have served is not Brian’s employee or staff member. He doesn’t work in Brian’s office. I am not sure exactly who he is. But I don’t think, for example, that substitute serving a janitor, security guard, or gardener in a building where an attorney maintains his office is good substituted service. I believe the papers must be personally handed to someone in charge, not of the building, but of the actual physical law office of the person you are trying to serve. There may be 100 offices in a building. I think you need to serve it on someone who is in charge of and actually works in the specific office of the person you are trying to serve, such as the attorney’s paralegal, partner, or associate. If that wasn’t a physical office, but a virtual office, then I think you have to personally serve someone at his residence or try to find a physical work address if one exists. Why do you think it’s good service if it’s a virtual office? It doesn’t satisfy the physical-service component of substituted service. CCP 425.20 says that a hard copy has to be left with a PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE OFFICE. And it also says that you cannot serve someone at a US Postal Service post office box, which suggests that substituted service cannot be made on a virtual office either, because no one who actually works with the person or law firm you are trying to serve is physically there. 4 Does that make sense? Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Dan Balsam Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:11 PM To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Ed, I am well aware that actual knowledge is insufficient and formal service is required. I'm merely pointing out that actual knowledge is undisputed. Heit Law Group PC appears to not have an actual office. The address on file with the Secretary of State for Heit Law Group PC in Walnut is a commercial mail receiving agency. I don't know any other address for Brian Heit, other than his "office." Accordingly, Brian Heit was substitute-served at his "office" in accordance with CCP 415.20(c). Dan Balsam From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:54 PM To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Dear Dan, I am not sure why you are mentioning constructive or actual notice of the lawsuit through service on co-Defendants. That doesn’t seem to be relevant. My understanding is that the statutes require proper service in strict compliance with the statutory requirements. For example, I don’t think you can call Brian on the phone and ask him to look in the Court docket. That puts him on notice of the lawsuit, but it’s not personal service, and it’s not proper substituted service. Does that make sense? I don’t think it was personally served on Brian Heit. 5 And if it was served by substituted service, it needs to be served on a person responsible for the office, an employee or staff member for example. It wasn’t served on Brian, or his paralegal, or staff. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Dan Balsam Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:47 PM To: Ed Sasaki ; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Ed, Yoiu/Heit obviously have actual knowlege of both Nace Reynolds lawsuits. Please explain precisely why you think service was bad. Thank you, Dan From: Ed Sasaki [mailto:ed@chalawethics.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:15 AM To: Dan Balsam; 'Jacob Harker' Cc: Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: (Heit) Nace Reynolds MEET AND CONFER REQUEST Dear Dan and Jacob, I would like to schedule a time to meet and confer with you regarding service on Brian Heit in the Nace Reynolds action. It is our position that service was not properly effected. My deadline to file is on Monday, October 18. But if we could speak briefly before then I would appreciate it. Or if you are able to extend our filing deadline by 15 days, please let me know. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 6 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 7 Exhibit B Ed Sasaki From: Ed Sasaki Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:57 PM To: Jacob Harker Cc: Dan Balsam; Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules Dear Jacob, Your statement that our office took on more work than it is able to handle is inaccurate. And it is not helpful to the meet and confer dialogue. I mentioned that I am on vacation in November. I will be drafting and arguing the motions for our firm. I provided you with several dates in December. Would you please advise as to your availability during that time. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Jacob Harker Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:05 PM To: Ed Sasaki Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules Ed, If you can't handle the 3 motions on the same day, perhaps Jean can do the ones you can't handle and schedule them all for November 17 or the week of November 22. As we have discussed many times, the fact that your office took on more work than it is able to handle is not our problem. Alternatively, Dan and I are available on November 15, 16, 18, and 19. You are required to calendar the motion within 35 days of filing, so, please calendar the motion on one of those dates. Thank you. - Jacob On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:42 PM Ed Sasaki wrote: Dear Jacob, 1 I will be on vacation during Thanksgiving time. My first available dates would be on December 10, 17, and 23. I am unable to cover two three motions on Nov. 17. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Jacob Harker Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:21 PM To: Ed Sasaki Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules Ed, You are similarly required by statute to calendar a demurrer within 35 days of filing. 2 As for the remainder of your email, I'll say it again - actions speak louder than words. I look forward to hearing from you regarding your available dates within 35 days of filing your proposed demurrer. Thank you. - Jacob On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:08 PM Ed Sasaki wrote: Dear Jacob, This entire email chain has been devoted to a discussion of the Demurrer and Motion to Strike in Tomi Mendez. You did not ask for hearing dates regarding the Motion to Quash. For the motion to quash, I was required by statute, CCP 418.10 (b), to calendar a date within 30 days after the filing deadline of October 18, 2021. If you and Dan prefer to have it heard on an earlier date, please let me know as soon as possible what dates work best for you, and perhaps we can submit a stip and order to move the date earlier. Thank you Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 3 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Jacob Harker Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:35 PM To: Ed Sasaki Cc: Dan Balsam ; Jean Cha ; Eva Chavez Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules Ed, As to your first point, San Francisco Local Rules state that parties filing a motion should coordinate with the other side. When you said I told you incorrect information, you were both wrong and suggesting that I made a misrepresentation to you. Regardless, you said that you would coordinate dates with us, which you obviously had no intention of doing because you filed Brian and HLG's motions to quash without coordinating hearing dates. As to your second point, there should be nothing to discuss. If you really intended on working together with us to schedule hearing dates, you would simply do that - regardless of what the rules state. You obviously never had any such intention because you filed Brian and HLG's motions to quash without coordinating hearing dates with us in advance. As to your third point, your research was apparently inadequate insofar as you failed to discover the rule regarding coordinating hearing dates for law and motion matters. Regardless, it doesn't matter because your statement that you are "always interested in cooperating to the fullest degree to schedule hearing dates that work for all parties" is patently false for your failure to do just that with regard to the aforementioned motions to quash. Indeed, your email suggesting that you would "always" work together to coordinate dates within 24 hours of you not coordinating dates can be described best as gaslighting. As you know, actions speak louder than words. Your actions indicate that you never had any intention to coordinate hearing dates. As to your fourth point, as I said in my email of October 16, I am happy to continue the discussion of an extension to respond in the Mendez case. I simply asked you for a timeline of file production from you first because it was that very file production that you cited as a reason for requiring more time to draft the demurrer. You seem to have ignored that email. Again you falsely state that you "continue to express every professional courtesy." But, as mentioned above, you didn't do that for the motions to quash. As for your desire to work together with Dan and me, I would suggest doing what you say you'll do (i.e. coordinating dates) as opposed to doing the opposite of what you say you'll do. Also, it would help if you stopped falsely alleging that we made misrepresentations to you. 4 As to your fifth point, you've got to be kidding me. You filed the motions to quash without coordinating it with me and Dan after you repeatedly (and still) claim that you were willing to coordinate dates with us. Again, you are simply gaslighting us. As to your sixth point, a demurrer must be heard within 35 days of its filing (C.R.C. 3.1320(d)). SInce (as you know) San Francisco has an open calendaring system, any demurrer must be calendared before November 25. Since we all know everyone is going to be in court on November 17, why don't we calendar it for that date? Otherwise, please provide your available dates before November 25. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the coordination of calendaring this and any other motion you may wish to file in any case for any party you represent. Thank you. - Jacob On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:43 AM Ed Sasaki wrote: Dear Jacob, I hope all is well. Please allow me to correct several statements in your prior email, relating to our meet and confer discussions on the Demurrer and Motion to Strike in the Tomi Mendez matter. First, during our meet and confer discussions, you and Dan represented that there is a Local Rule requiring that we meet and confer regarding the scheduling of hearing dates for a motion to quash. I found a Local Rule relating to 5 discovery motions, but none relating to motions to quash. At no time have I accused you of any intentional misrepresentation, as is clear from my prior emails below. Second, as you and Dan raised this point during our meet and confer discussions under CCP 430.41 and the Local Rules, I wanted to clarify your position. If you do not wish to discuss it further, I respect your wishes. I remain interested in extending to you any professional courtesy. In addition, if this also comports with a mandate under a Local Rule, I was interested in hearing about it for my own reference and benefit. We were able to address Defendants’ concerns and concluded our meet and confer discussions on this point, after you indicated that you decline to further meet and confer on this issue. Third, your statements that I have not done any research or am trying to get you to do my research are both inaccurate. As I mentioned, my research on this issue found no applicable Local Rule mandating a meet and confer process to set hearing dates for non-discovery motions. However, I do wish to make it clear that I am always interested in cooperating to the fullest degree to schedule hearing dates that work for all parties. I merely asked, as a professional courtesy, whether you were aware of the specific Local Rule that supports your representation that I am required to clear non-discovery hearing dates with you. This was not intended as an accusation directed at you or Dan. After you declined to provide a specific Local Rule and I was not able to find one, I shared my findings with you when you did not respond to my question. I viewed this as amiably trying to cooperate and share information between counsel in the interest of civility and professionalism. Fourth, on several occasions, you and Dan have declined to extend Defendants the professional courtesy of a 15-day extension of time to respond in Nace Reynolds and Tomi Mendez. Though this may be at your client’s direction, I do not take offense to your position. To be clear, on behalf of my clients, I am still interested in discussing hearing dates for the Tomi Mendez Demurrer and Motion to Strike hearings. My hope is that as I continue to express every professional courtesy, that you will reciprocate in turn. I find that matters move more smoothly when counsel are able to cooperate to the best of their ability. Fifth, I look forward to discussing possible hearing dates that work for your client and your schedules. Pardon any misunderstanding if you were left with the impression that I was unwilling to offer you this courtesy. If you review my emails below, you will find that I have always been open to coordinating dates that work for your calendars and mine. Sixth, please let me know if you and Dan are available on January 7, 14, or 21, 2022, for a hearing on the Demurrer and Motion to Strike in Tomi Mendez. Thank you, Ed 6 Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Jacob Harker Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 10:09 AM To: Ed Sasaki Cc: Dan Balsam ; Eva Chavez ; Jean Cha Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- HEARING DATE -- SF Local Rules Ed, This is the second time in a day that you have falsely accused me of misrepresentation. Please discontinue such unprofessional behavior - especially when you are seeking my professional courtesies (i.e. extensions of time, that I do your research for you, etc.). I understood that you were under time pressure because your office took on more work than it could handle with respect to the matters involving Dan's and my offices. It seems that you are electing to spend your precious time casting stones, "winning" a ridiculous argument, and having the last word. As for your "simple question," which appears to be a request that I do the research that you were unable to do, I refer you to Ms. Cha's email of May 13 where I asked a "simple question," and she responded, "You may wish to confirm this by conducting your own research on behalf of your client." 7 As I said before, if you really meant what you said that you would prefer to coordinate scheduling, then this entire thread is a pointless waste of time and has only served to drive us further from the ultimate objective, which is that we should be working together. Although I doubt you'll be able to drop this and move on to matters of actual concern, I'd appreciate it if you did. Thank you. - Jacob On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:34 PM Ed Sasaki wrote: Dear Jacob, Two things. You didn’t answer my question. And I never said I would not try to coordinate dates with you. First, I am trying to clarify apparently incorrect information that you and Dan gave me. I only asked you a simple question. You and Dan told me that there was a local rule mandating that I coordinate dates with you. That seems to be incorrect. I found a rule for discovery motions. Are you aware of any rule that asks counsel to coordinate the hearing dates for non-discovery motions? A simple yes or no would be appreciated. Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 8 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 From: Jacob Harker Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:15 PM To: Ed Sasaki Cc: Dan Balsam ; Eva Chavez ; Jean Cha Subject: Re: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- HEARING DATE -- SF Local Rules Ed, It seems like you are taking the position that you will not coordinate the hearing date with us absent a rule requiring you to do so. If I am wrong, we can just forget this entire thread, in which case I look forward to hearing from you regarding your proposed dates for the hearing. Thank you. - Jacob On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 2:05 PM Ed Sasaki wrote: Dear Dan and Jacob, You mentioned that I am required to meet and confer with you to pick a mutually acceptable hearing date under the Local Rules. But this is the only rule I can find. Are you aware of any other rules that expressly apply to Demurrers, Motions to Strike, or Motion to Quash. This only seems to apply to discovery motions. 9 10 Discovery and Civil Miscellaneous 10.0 Discovery and Other Hearings in the Civil Discovery Department C. Calendaring Noticed Motions. Reservations are not required to calendar a discovery motion. A party filing a motion to be heard in the Discovery Department may select a hearing date after conferring with all opposing parties in an effort to choose a date that is mutually agreeable to all parties affected by the motion. Noticed motions are heard Monday through Friday at 9:00 am. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETHICS 1100 W. Town & Country Rd., Ste. 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Office (714) 242-8588 Cell (559) 213-5605 ed@chalawethics.com 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 472 Irvine, CA 92618 10 -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker 268 Bush St. #3732 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 624-7602 Fax: (415) 684-7757 Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602 -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker 268 Bush St. #3732 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 624-7602 Fax: (415) 684-7757 Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602 -- 11 Law Offices of Jacob Harker 268 Bush St. #3732 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 624-7602 Fax: (415) 684-7757 Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602 -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker 268 Bush St. #3732 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 624-7602 Fax: (415) 684-7757 Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602 -- Law Offices of Jacob Harker 268 Bush St. #3732 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 624-7602 Fax: (415) 684-7757 12 Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this- e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by e-mail (by replying to this message) or telephone (noted below) and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. Thank you for your cooperation with respect to this matter. Telephone number: (415) 624-7602 13 Ed Sasaki From: Ed Sasaki Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:46 PM To: Jacob Harker Cc: Dan Balsam; Jean Cha; Eva Chavez Subject: RE: (Sheehan) Tomi Mendez -- Meet and Confer re: HEARING DATES -- SF Local Rules Dear Jacob, Earlier dates won’t work for my schedule. Thank you, Ed Ed Sasaki Senior Attorney CHA LAW ETH