MICHAEL SCOTT SHANNAHAN VS. JOHN ALEXANDER HALLEY

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 31 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 10 26-CIV-02490 MICHAEL SCOTT SHANNAHAN VS. JOHN ALEXANDER HALLEY

MICHAEL SCOTT SHANNAHAN JAMES L ARRASMITH JOHN ALEXANDER HALLEY WALTER C COOK

DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant John Alexander Valley’s (“Defendant”) Demurrer to Second Cause of Action of Plaintiff Michael Scott Shannahan’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is OVERRULED.

This action arises from alleged legal malpractice. In October 2023, Plaintiff retained Defendant pursuant to a written fee agreement to represent him in an appeal arising from a DUI (driving under the influence) case in which Plaintiff was convicted (“San Mateo action”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant incorrectly advised Plaintiff that a stay of the suspension of his driver’s license had been issued, which resulted in him being cited and another action filed against him in Alameda (“Alameda action”). Plaintiff also alleges Defendant filed a motion to set aside a default judgment against Plaintiff in the Alameda action using a factual theory that was false.

“Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another...may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.)

The Second Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief alleges that an actual present controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning their rights and obligations under the October 2023 fee agreement and Defendant’s billing practices. (Complaint, ¶ 54.) Defendant used an hourly fee arrangement and accepted substantial funds form Plaintiff under a written retainer, and failed to provide bills clearly stating the amount, rate, basis for calculation or other method of determining attorney’s fees and costs. (Id., ¶ 56.)

Plaintiff requested billing information and did not receive it as required by Business and Professions Code section 6148(b). (Id., ¶ 57.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s non-compliance with section 6148 renders the fee agreement voidable at Plaintiff’s option, and Plaintiff elects to treat the agreement as voidable to the extent of Defendant’s non-compliance. (Id., ¶ 58.) As a result, Defendant may retain only reasonable fee and reimbursable costs that Defendant can substantiate. (Id., ¶ 59.)

Defendant disputes, or is likely to dispute, Plaintiff’s right to treat the agreement as voidable, the right to adequate accountings and the right to recover funds retained by Defendant in excess of reasonable fee and

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 32 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ reimbursable costs. (Id., ¶ 60.) Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and duties including that Plaintiff has validly elected to treat the fee agreement as voidable and that Defendant may retain only such reasonable fee and reimbursable costs as Defendant proves. (Id., ¶ 61.)

Business and Professions Code section 6148 states in relevant part: ...

(b) All bills rendered by an attorney to a client shall clearly state the basis thereof. Bills for the fee portion of the bill shall include the amount, rate, basis for calculation, or other method of determination of the attorney's fees and costs. Bills for the cost and expense portion of the bill shall clearly identify the costs and expenses incurred and the amount of the costs and expenses. Upon request by the client, the attorney shall provide a bill to the client no later than 10 days following the request unless the attorney has provided a bill to the client within 31 days prior to the request, in which case the attorney may provide a bill to the client no later than 31 days following the date the most recent bill was provided.

The client is entitled to make similar requests at intervals of no less than 30 days following the initial request. In providing responses to client requests for billing information, the attorney may use billing data that is currently effective on the date of the request, or, if any fees or costs to that date cannot be accurately determined, they shall be described and estimated.

(c) Failure to comply with any provision of this section renders the agreement voidable at the option of the client, and the attorney shall, upon the agreement being voided, be entitled to collect a reasonable fee. ...

(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6148, subds. (b)-(c).)

The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject. (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79.) The court may sustain a demurrer on the ground that the complaint fails to allege an actual or present controversy, or that it is not “justiciable.” (DeLaura v. Beckett (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 542, 545.)

Defendant claims that no actual controversy exists regarding the voidability of the fee agreement under section 6148 because Defendant’s counsel and Defendant never disputed and concede Plaintiff’s right to elect voidability under section 6148. (Cook Decl., ¶ 9.) However, a demurrer may be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) No extrinsic evidence may be considered on a demurrer. (Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, disapproved on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 250.) The court

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 33 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ therefore does not consider this extrinsic evidence regarding Defendant’s claimed concession for purposes of this Demurrer. Even if the court could consider extrinsic evidence, the court notes that no declaration has been provided by Defendant himself as to the claimed concession.

Furthermore, Plaintiff correctly points out that Business & Professions Code section 6148, subdivision (c), provides for the attorney to collect a reasonable fee. As such, this cause of action also seeks a declaration as to what is a reasonable fee, if any. Even if the court could consider the declaration in ruling on the Demurrer (which it does not), Defendant does not appear to concede that he is not entitled to any payment of fees.

The court finds that Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support this declaratory relief claim.

Defendant is to file and serve an answer within ten days of service of written notice of entry of order by Plaintiff.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.