Demurrer in Nicole E Jordan vs Rogers Sheffield & Campbell LLP et al| Trellis.Law

On June 22, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Jordan, Nicole E, and Green, Jamie Cathleen, Jordan, Angela M, Jordan, Jennifer, Price, Sheila T, Rogers Sheffield & Campbell Llp, Sheffield, Amethyst Eve, for Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
1 KENNY C. BROOKS (SBN 254842)
MTCHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588)
2 NEMECEK& COLE
A Professional Corporation
3 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Encino, California 9 1 43 6 -23 00
4 Tel: (818) 788-9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328

5 Attorneys for Defendants
ROGERS SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP
6 and SHEILA PRICE (as Representative ofthe
Estate of Homer Shelfield)
7

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF' THE STATE OF' CALIT'ORNIA
10
FOR THE COT]NTY OF SANTA BARBARA
o5 11

12
-q#9s
\J9o> NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually and as Case No.: 23CY02702
13 Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of THE Assigned to Hon. Colleen Steme
€H:? BOROMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN
v iEE t4 FAMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and DEFENDANTS ROGERS SHEFF'IELD &
i:o:q, Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF CAMPBELL LLP's and SHEILA PRICE
15 VIRGINIA JORDAN (DECEASED) (AS REPR"ESENTATIVE OF THE
>xsP
iri&\e
Ea6:u t6 Plaintiff, ESTATE OF HOMER SHEtr'F',IELD)'S
A " )=" DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE
t7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
z 18 ROGERS SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL. et al. Date: May 20,2024
and DOES 1 to 20; inclusive, Time: 10:00 a.m.
I 19
Defendants.
Dept: 5
20
(Motion to Strike and Request for Judicial
21 Notice Concurrently Filed)

I
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demune(3863638.1)
1 TABLE OT'CONTENTS
Page
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .. ....10
3

4 I. INTRODUCTION ...10

5 [. STATEMENTOFFACTS ....10

6 A. RELEVANTBACKGROTIND. .... 10

7 B. THE ESTATE PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS
THERETO ...il
8
C, SHEFFIELD TERMINATES THE ATTORNEY.CLIENT
9
RELATIONSFIIP ... t2
10
D THE CONSERVATORSHIP ACTION. t2
l1
E6 E. THE TRUST IS CONFIRMED BY COURT ORDER. t2
z)a
tr.l
J t2
c l :!
F. NICOLE'S UNTIMELY TRUST CONTEST.. l3
U ao=
*26 i3
€ Hai G THE INSTANT ACTION ....14
IL! {u6 t4
U 91 aZ 1. TheComplaint......... ...14
l5
3ga 2 The Demurrer to the Prior Complaint......... 14
z 16

17
3 The First Amended CompIainl.................... l4
z 18 4 The Court of Appeal Affirmed the Decision Against Nicole on the
Trust Contest ................. ... l5
19
5. Meet and Confer Efforts Were Unsuccessful .... 15
)o
III. ARGUMENT... 16
21

22
A. NICOLE CANNOT MAINTAIN ANY CLAIMS BASED ON LEGAL
SERVICES 16

23
1 Claims Based on Legal Services Are Time-Barred t6
24
2 Nicole Lacks Standing to Assert Representative Claims re Legal
25 Services..... 17

26 3. The FAC re Legal Services Fails For Lack ofDuty .... l8
27 B. NICOLE FAILS TO ALLEGE FACTS SUPPORTING FRAUD.. ....19

28 C. NICOLE FAILED TO MITIGATE HER DAMAGES...,......,........ ...20
2
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(1275019.1)
1
D. NICOLE CANNOT MAINTAIN ANY CLAIM AS TO SHEFFIELD'S
ALLEGED ACTIONS AS TRUSTEE 2t
2
E. ADDITIONAL DEFECTS OFTHEFAC 22
)
F. NO LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE PERMITTED Z)
4
IV. CONCLUSION 24
5

10
= 13
€
V 14
U lrad
15
z P3a
'.r.1

z cod
16

17
;t-
2
18

2l
22

DEMURRER TO PLAINTTFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(12750r9. t)
I TABLE OF AUTHORJTIES
Paqe
2
CASES
J
Agam v. Garva
4 (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 91, 11 I 20

5
Alexander v. Exxon Mobil
6
(20 13) 21 9 Cal. App. 4th 123 6, I 25 0 .................. l6

7 Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
(2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 500, 505 16
8
Beldstein v. Superior Court
9 (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 908 ..... t7
5 l0 Blank v. Kirwan
; 13
€
vr! 4;!) 14
Q q-a9
El 15

E,l -je
t6
z cot
t7
;t
z
18

t9
20

DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(32750r9 t)
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 20,2024 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as this

-) motion may be heard in Department 5 ofthe above-entitled Court located at 1100 Anacapa Street,

4 Santa Barbara, Califomia, Defendants Sheila Price and Rogers Sheffield & Campbell, LLP ("the

5 Attomey Defendants") will, and hereby does, demur to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of

6 Plaintiff Nicole Emily Jordan ("Nicole.")t

7 The Motion is based on this notice; the attached memorandum ofpoints and authorities; the

8 declaration of Kenny C. Brooks, the Request for Judicial Notice submitted by Nicole in support of
9 her FAC, the Request for Judicial Notice submitted by the Attomey Defendants, and supporting

10 exhibits; the documents in this court's file; and on other oral and documentary evidence that may be
Ac:
i,,&+9
Ectu,r
,z <=z 16
;T t7
z
18

I t9
20

zt
22

9
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
dcrnum(3863618 l)
I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I
3 INTI{ODUCTION
4 This lawsuit is the latest in a series of nonsensical and unsuccessful legal filings by Plaintiff

5 Nicole Jordan ('Nicole") regarding the testamentary wishes of her parents -- Boromir Jordan and

6 Virginia Jordan ("the Jordan Parents.") This time, Nicole takes aim at the Jordan Parents' former

7 estate planning attomey, Homer Sheffield ("Sheffreld") and his law firm Rogers Sheffietd &
8 Campbell, LLP ("the RSC Firm") (collectively, "the Attomey Defendants.") In connection with a

9 demurrer to Nicole's initial Complaint, this Court identified a litany of defects resolving nearly the

10 entirety of the action against the Attomey Defendants - iargely on statute of limitations grounds. In

*26 13 amend as Nicole has confirmed that she cannot maintun any claim against the Attomey Defendants.
€
t! 14 II.
(, EAB
r! 15 STATEMENT OF FACTS
P3! The following are facts taken from the allegations in the FAC, the exhibits attached to the
Z 16
cot
t7 Complaint, and from the documents attached to Request for Judicial Notice that Nicole submitted in
;F
z 18 support of her initial Complaint ("the Nicole RIN.") These facts below that are taken from the

l9 Complaint are presumed to be true for the purposes of this Demurrer and for no other purposes

20 whatsoever. There are also references to a Request for Judicial Notice Submitted by the Attomey

21 Defendants ("the RSC 2N.")
22 A. RELEVANTBACKGROUND
23 The Jordan Parents had three (3) daughters - Nicole, Defendant Angela Jordan ("Angela")

24 and Defendant Jennifer Jordan ("Jennifer") (collectively "the Jordan Children.") (FAC at !i16.)

25 Sheffield, an attomey with the RSC Firm, was the Jordan Parents' estate planning attomey from 1998

25 until October 2018 -- when Sheffreld refused to draft an trust amendment requested by the Jordan
27 Parents and instead terminated the attomey-client relationship. (ld. at fl18.) From 2008 onward,
28 Nicole was the in-home caregiver for the Jordan Parents. (1d at !f20.) Boromir, Virginia, and

10
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF"S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demune(3863638 i)
1 Sheffield are all now deceased. (1d at fln26-34.)

2 B. THE ESTATE PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO

J September 1998: The Jordan Parents settled the Trust (/d at'l]'!Jl8-19.) The Jordan Parents

4 were the trustees and Boromir's brother was listed as the successor trustee. (1Drd) When initially

5 settled, the Trust equally divided its assets among the Jordan Children. (1brd ) Concurrently, each of
6 the Jordan Parents also executed wills. (See Nicole RJN at 107-11.)

September 2000: The Trust was amended to make Angela and Jennifer successor co-trustees

8 (Id. atflfl20-21.) The beneficiary distribution remained unchanged. (lbid.)

9 Aoril2007: The Trust was fully restated ("the Third Amendment.") (Id. atEx.3) The Third

10 Amendment conflrmed that the Trust estate consisted of several parcels of real property, cash, and
xc:
;ri;1s
Eairrur
z.<== l6 On November i, 2020 (ust after Watson was named as temporary conservator), Virginia
YI
t7 passed away. (Id. at n28.) On November 11,2020, after leaming of Virginia's death, Sheffield
z provided Watson with the relevant estate planning documents (1.e., the Third, Fourth, and Fifth
l8

I 19 Amendments.) (Complaint at Ex. 7.) In that letter, Sheffield noted that "under the current
20 circumstances, [he] would have to decline to act [as successor trustee and executor.]" (lbid.) On

21 November 16,2020, Pearlman wrote a letter to Watson stating "l am declining to act" as successor

22 co-trustee. (FAC at Ex. 8.) On December 7,2020, Sheflield officially confirmed that (a) he did not

ZJ wish to act as successor co-tnrstee; and (b) the only action he would take as successor co-trustee

24 would be to exercise his power to appoint the Watson to act at the successor trustee going forward.

25 (Complaint at Ex. 9.) Watson accepted his appoinbnent as successor trustee. (See Ex. A to RSC

26 RJN.)

28 r The Fifth Amendment differed slightly from the distribution ofthe original Trust
- i.e., three third parties were to each
receive a $10,000 specific bequest (the Mekoskis.) (16id )
t2
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demurc(3863638.1)
I On January 8,2021, pursuant to Probate Code $16061.7, Watson provided notice ofthe Trust

2 to Nicole stating that (l) the operative Trust included only the enclosed Third, Fourth, and Fifth

J Amendments; and (2) any contest to the Trust needed to be brought within 120 days (by May 8,2021)

4 ("the 120-Day Notice.") (See Nicole RJN at 93-96.) On January 27,2021, Watson filed a petition

5 to confirm that (1) he was successor trustee; and (2) the operative version of the Trust was comprised

6 of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments ("the Watson Petition.") (See Ex. Ato RSC RJN.) The

7 Watson Petition (which was served on Nicole) states that Nicole had already taken the position in

8 correspondence that Watson was not the duly authorized trustee and that there were additional

9 operative amendments to the Trust. (1d at !f8.) Nicole did not file a written opposition to the Watson

l0 Petition - nor did she appear at the hearing. (See Ex. D to RSC RJN at 3.) Accordingly, in March
e
fr.l
z 16 On January 16,2024, the Court ofAppeal issued its opinion on Nicole's appeal ofthe decision

17 that her Trust Contest was time-barred. (See Ex. E to RSC RJN.) Of no surprise, the trial court's
,lr
z
UJ 18 decision was afftmed. (Ibid.)

19 5. Meet and Confer Efforts Were Unsuccessful

20 Counsel for Nicole and the Attomey Defendants engaged in a telephonic meet-and-confer

21 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $430.41 . (Brooks Decl. at fl5-7.) There was an agreed to extend

22 the Attomey Defendants' time to fi1e a response pleading until March 15,2024. The extension was

23 designed to allow Nicole's counsel to provide a proposed second amended complaint for review.

However, the day before the instant demurrer was set to be filed, Nicole's counsel provided

25 corespondence simply reiterating the false notion that appellate processes preclude claim accrual.

26 (See Ex. E to Brooks Decl.) As no proposed amended pleading (or any explanation as to how the

27
5
28 Nicole did not haveleayeto f\le new causes of action. However, as these causes ofaction do not change the analysis,
they are more specifically addressed herein.
15

DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demure(38636381)
1 matter was not time-barred) was provided by March 15,2024, the Attorney Defendants filed the

2 instant demurrer . (Ibid.)

J m.
4 ARGUMENT

5 A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face ofthe pleading under

6 attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)

7 39 Cal. 3d 31 1, 3 18; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 1 16 Cal. App. 4th 968,994). A demurrer

8 can be utilized where the face of the complaint is incomplete or discloses some defense that would

9 bar recovery (e.g, dates pleaded in complaint show statute of limitations has run). (Guardian North

10 Bay, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th963,971-972; Estate ofMoss (2012)204 CaL App. 4th
iR
ft?
o3 11 521,535; Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1236, 1250). The 'face ofthe
:r.l z)6
J 12 complaint' includes matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987)
o kour
Q 13 189 Cal. App. 3d 91,94; Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 500, 505).
€ xa3
V >s3
tr.l
14 A. NICOLE CANNOT MAINTAIN ANY CLAIMS BASED ON LEGAL SERVICES
U ArY
t! uro^ l5 Nicole cannot maintain any claims predicated on legal services provided by the Attorney
E P3a
z .ot
16 Defendants for a host ofreasons, including that the claims are time-barred.

17 1. Claims Based on Legal Services Are Time-Barred
trF
z
t8 The FAC is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to lawsuits against an

e 19 attomey arising out oftheir performance ofprofessional services.

20 The Court Already Ruled That lhe Claims Are Time Barred'. ln connection with the

2t Demurrer to the initiai Complaint, the Court ruled that ali causes of action against the Attomey

22 Defendants were barred by the one-year statute of limitations stated in Code of Civil Procedure

23 $340.6 -- except for the Breach ofFiduciary Duty claim against Sheffield stemming from his actions

24 as Trustee. (See Ex. B to Brooks Decl.) The Court's analysis is clear and correct -- and there is no
25 need to reiterate the arguments in the underlying papers. (See Exs. A and B to Brooks Decl.) The

26 Court gave Nicole the oppornmiry to amend the complaint to demonstrate that the claims were not

27 time-baned under $340.6.

t6
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
dcmure(1E63638 l)
1 The FAC Confirms Thal the Claims Are Time Barred: In the FAC and the meet-and-confer

2 process (See Ex. D to Brooks Decl.), Nicole claims that her claims against the Attomey Defendants

J were tolled due to her ongoing appeal ofthe Court's adverse decision against her on the Trust Contest.

4 (See Ex. D to RSC RJN.) Specifically, Nicole contends that she has not suffered "actual injury" until

5 her appeal is completed and, therefore, accrual ofher claim is tolled under $340.6(1). The Califomia

6 Supreme Court has already explicitly rejected this exact argument in Laird y. Blackner (1992) 2 Cal.

7 4th 606. 7n Lqird, the California Supreme Court provided as follows:

8
[W]e hold that under section 340.6, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice
9 actions commences on entry of adverse judgment or final order of dismissal. [][ [
Nonetheless, plaintiff asserts that she did not suffer actual injury until her appeal of
; distinction between the fact and knowledge of damage, and lhe amount of damage.
-=za 13
{ H:9
"-a
As defendants observe, there are no Califomia cases holding that a cause of action
XiIA t4 for legal malpractice is tolled on filing an appeal from the underlying judgment.
Q;?d
g3;i 15 Id. aI 615. The trial court decision against Nicole on her Trust Contest started the statute of
=9i; limitations. There is no tolling by appeal. This is no surprise because the Califomia Supreme Court
A<=< l6
t7 already confirmed that the tolling mechanisms listed in $340.6 are exclusive. (Beldstein v. Superior
z 18 Court (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 908.)

I 19 2. Nicole Lacks Standing to Assert Representative Claims re Lqgql Serviqqr

20 Nicole purports to bring every cause of action asserted against the Attorney Defendants on

21 behalf of the Trust (as successor trustee.) Moreover, each one of her claims appears to be predicated

22 primarily on damages allegedly suffered by the Jordan Parents (not hersel|. However, this Court has

23 already ruled that Watson (not Nicole) is the trustee. (See Ex. B to RSC RJN.) Moreover, the last

24 codicils ofher parents' wills appointed Sheffield and Watson as the successor executors -- and Nicole

25 never sought to be named as their personal representative. Watson was Virginia's conservator at the

26 time of her death and Probate Code $2467 provides that a conservator "continues to have the duty

27 and custody and conservation of the estate after the death of the conservatee[.]" Accordingly, Nicole

28 currently has no standing to bring claims on behalf of the Trust or either of the Jordan Parents. This

t7
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I standing defect is fatal to (1) every cause ofaction brought by Nicole on behalf ofthe Trust; and (2)

2 every cause of action against the Attomey Defendants predicated on damages purportedly sustained

J by the Jordan Parents (as opposed to Nicole) - 1.e., which appears to be every single claim.

4 3. The FAC re Les al Services Fails For Lack of Dutv

5 The FAC fails to allege facts sufficient to establish a duty. In this case, the duty owed lo

6 Nicole was extremely limited because she was only a non-client beneficiary (and has no standing to

7 assert claims based on duties potentially owed to the Jordan Parents.)

8 Lawyers Do Not Owe Fiduciary Duties to Non-Clients: The Attomey Defendants

9 represented the Jordan Parents - not Nicole. There are no circumstances wherein an attomey owes

5 10 fiduciary duties to non-clients (such as Nicole.) fFuria v. Helm (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 945,953
ASP
15 Drafting Altorney Owe Very Limited Duties to BeneJiciaries: In the estate planning context,
iriile
Ea.[JU 16 the drafting attomey owes broad duties to the testator with whom there is a direct attomey-client
A<==
.oi
17 relationship. The drafting attomey also owes a limited dr;fry to the intended beneficiaries to draft the
z
18 estate plan in a manner that effectuates the clear intent of the testator. (Chang v. Lederman (2009)

l9 172 Cal. App.4th 67.) Nicole's FAC completely fails to alleee any breach of duty owed to her. Firsl,

20 much of the FAC discusses purported breaches of duties having nothing to do with effectuating the

21 cleor ittent of the Jordan Parents (loyalty, confidentiality, duty to inform, etc.) To the extent that any

22 claim relies on the breach of such duties, the claim fails because no such duties are owed to Nicole.

l5 Second, the intent of the Jordan Parents is obviously not clear and the subject a massive dispute

24 between the Jordan Children. When the intent of the testator is not clear, the drafting attomey has no

25 duty to the benefi ciaries. (Ibid.) Third, there is not even an allegation that any of the estate planning

26 docnments drafted by Sheffield failed to effectuate the intent of the Jordan Parents (at the time the

27 document was drafted.) Rather, the allegation is that Sheffield refused to draft the Sixth Amendment

28 that the Jordan Parents purportedly requested. Of course, an attomey-client relationship is not

t8
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demurre(1861618. 1 )
I indentured servitude. The Attomey Defendants had no duty to draft the Sixth Amendment simply

2 because it was requested by the Jordan Parents. In fact, estate planning attomeys routinely refuse to

3 draft estate planning documents requested by their clients - often because the lawyer has concerns
4 about potential undue influence and/or capacity issues (which was obviously the case here.) In such

5 a situation, the appropriate thing for the lawyer to do is withdraw from the representation - which is

6 precisely what Sheffield did here. The Jordan Parents were free to find another iawyer or draft the

7 Sixth Amendment without a lawyer - the latter of which is precisely what Nicole's alleges happened

8 here. (FAC at Ex. 1.)

9 There Was No Duty to Disclose Anything to Nicole: Nicole's causes of action for

l0 constructive fraud (5th) and ftaud by concealment (6ft) are predicated on an allegation that the
2
11 Attomey Defendants failed to disclose that it was communicating with Angela, Jennifer, and other
J 12 third parties. (Complaint at flfl2 69-284.) Of course, as discussed above, the Attomey Defendants did
kour
O (JO=
*26 13 not owe any duty oldisclosure to Nicole (a non-client third party.)
.3
r! <,,,5 14 B. NICOLE FAILS TO ALLEGE FACTS SUPPORTING FRAUD
Q A'a 9
fr.l 15 "The essential elements of a count for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of
9<;
falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.
z <)2.
@t
r6

17 (Chapman v. Slgtpe, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 217,230-231). When it comes to fraud, each
luJ
FF
z 18 element must be pled with particularity. (ld.) T\e particularity requirement seryes to give the
19 Defendant notice ofthe alleged misrepresentation and gives the Court the abiiity to dismiss meritless

20 fraud claims at the pleading stage. (West v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.4th 780.

2l 783). In this case, Nicole does not specifically allege that how anything purportedly done by the

22 Attomey Defendants could have possibly caused ft er to rcly to her detriment - nor would it make any

23 sense whatsoever as follows:

24 Conglarctive Fraud (5th) and Concealment (6th): Nicole alle ges that the Attorney Defendants

25 received bad information from Angela, Jennifer, and others - which caused the Attomey Defendants

26 to refrain from drafting the Sixth Amendment. (Complaint at lll274-307.) Supposedly, if the

27 Attomey Defendants had disclosed why lhey were withdrawing rather than to draft the Sixth
28 Amendment, Nicole and the Jordans Parents could have responded and again requested that the

t9
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demxre(3863638 l)
I Attomey Defendants draft the Sixth Amendment. (Ibid.) This is beyond nonsensical for several

2 reasons. Firsl, Nicole was a trust beneficiary - not the client of the Attomey Defendants. The

J Attomey Defendants had no duty to disclose anything to her. Accordingly, she could not have relied

4 on a lack of disclosure to which she was never erfiitled. Second, the FAC confirms that the Jordan

5 Parents did not rely on the purported non-disclosure. The Attomey Defendants simply withdrew

6 from the representation. There is no allegation that it advised the Jordan Parents that the requested

7 Sixth Amendment was illegal or unenforceable. If the Jordan Parents wanted the Sixth Amendment,

8 they were free to get another lawyer or draft it themselves - the latter of which they purportedly did.

9 The required element of actual reliance is completely absent and contradicted by the fact that the

5 10 Jordan Parents purported did execute a Sixth Amendment.
<3
OE 11 Intentional,Negligent Misrepresentation (7th and 9th) Nicole alleges that the Attorney
Ir.l z i a'
J9d5 12 Defendants promised to represent the Jordan Parents' estate planning interests, but then failed to do
(rE9ul
VYSz'
,, & fi a 13 so. (ld. al flJ1294-307 and 315-323.) Notably, the statements were purportedly made to the Jordan
oo9;v
X*c!
i-r;+e
16 standard. Rather, the "but for" causation is the required standard. (Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal. 4th
A<==
mt
t7 1232.)
z
18 F. NO LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE PERMITTED

19 A demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend absent a showing by the plaintiff that

20 a reasonable possibility exists that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)

2l 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Lacher v. Superior Court (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1043.) The burden of
22 such reasonable possibility rests squarely on the plaintiff. (Torres v. City of Yorba Linda (1993) 13

23 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1041.) No amendment can cure the numerous defects in the pleadings, including

24 but not limited to the fact that this matter is completely barred by the statute of limitations and Nicole

25 lacks standings. There is nothing Nicole can do to cure these issues because they are predicated on

26 prior Court orders that cannot be changed. She had her chance to amend. Her FAC demonstrates

27 that Nicole has no viable claims.

23
DI]MURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
demuner(3863638 l)
1 IV.
2 CONCLUSION
J The Attomey Defendants respectfully submits that this demurrer should be sustained in its

4 entirety without leave to amend.

6 DATED: March15,2024 NEMECF,K & COI-E

8 By: Kewry tsroofrs
MICIIAEL MCCARTHY
9 KENNYBROOKS
Attorneys for Defendants ROGERS
?n
10 SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP
a?
o5 11
tri=io
12
Oia;
13
€ 519
14

15
>HgP
16
A <==
17
z
18

24
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
deDrDre(]863638 l)
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
) SS
3 COUNTYOF SANTABARBARA )
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 18 and not
a party to the within action. My business address is 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Encino,
5 cA91436-2300.
6 On March 15,2024,I served the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANTS ROCERS
SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL LLP,s and SHEILA PRICE (AS REPRESENTATIVE OF
7 THE ESTATE OF HOMER SHEFFIELD)'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTIRE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, upon the interested parties in this action in sealed envelopes
8 addressed as follows:

9 Tamineh Roshanian, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiff
ROSHANIAN PAYMAN, PC
10

*26 13 Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel
ci( Jennifer J. Lee, Depury
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
<;e t4 105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 201
3dp 15 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
oe= Tel: (805) 568-2950 / Fax: (805) 568-2982
16 ernail enlee coun 'ot'-sb.o
Z
ot
t7 tr BY U.S. MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
trF processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with
18 U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Encino,
Califomia in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
19 served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after day ofdeposit for mailing contained in affidavit.
20 tr BY OVERNICIIT DELIVERY: I deposited this document in the box or other facility
located at 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Encino, CA 91436-2300 regularly
2l maintained by General Logistics Systems, in an envelope designated by General Logistics
Systems with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the persons on whom it is to
22 be served, for guaranteed next day delivery.
tr BY ELECTRONIC MAIL [to individual person(s)l: By electronically transmitting the
23 document(s) listed above to the e-mail address(es) ofthe person(s) set forth on the attached
service list from the e-mail address mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com To my knowledge, the
transmission was reported as completed and without error. See, Califurnia Rules of Court,
Rule 2.251.
25 tr BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE: I caused the document(s) listed above to
be filed and served via the Court's Electronic Filing System through an approved third-
26 party vendor, and such document(s) were electronically served on the addressee(s) at the
email addresses noted above.
27 tr BY FACSIMILE MACHINE: I caused the foregoing document to be served by
facsimile transmission to each of the interested parties at the facsimile machine telecopy
28 number shown above.

PROOF OI' SERVICE
3759066.1
1 tr BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the delivery of such envelope by hand to the
offices of the addressee.
2
Executed on March 15,2024, at Encino, Califomia.
J
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above is true
4 and correct.

7
llur#
Michelle W. Stoecker

10
<&
o:i
r6 11
Azla
l^F^- 12
v #i\
lra-= 13
€ H:?
XiIs
: F:
t:.,t
14

=93;
A<=< t6
;T 17
18

2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3759066.1

Case Info

Judge

Rigali, James F Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 15, 2024

Case Filing Date

June 22, 2023

County

Parties

Green, Jamie Cathleen Defendant
Jordan, Angela M Defendant
Jordan, Jennifer Defendant
Jordan, Nicole E Plaintiff
Price, Sheila T Defendant
Rogers Sheffield & Campbell LLP Defendant
Roshanian, Tamineh Attorney for the Plaintiff
Sheffield, Amethyst Eve Defendant
Kenny Brooks Attorney
Michael McCarthy Attorney
Mark Watson Attorneys for Defendants
Jeffrey Soderborg Attorneys for Defendants
Vanita Tyler Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Nicole E Jordan vs Rogers Sheffield & Campbell LLP et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties