Tentative Ruling: Jack Skidmore et al vs Michael Shane Downs et al

Case Number

25CV06324

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/30/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer; Motion: Strike to Strike Portions of the Complaint

Tentative Ruling

Jack Skidmore v. Michael Shane Downs                        

Case No. 25CV06324

           

Hearing Date:      March 30, 2026                                                      

HEARING:              (1) Demurer of Defendant Michael Shane Downs

                                    (2) Motion to Strike of Defendant Michael Shane Downs

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Jack Skidmore: John J. Thyne III, Adam T. Carralejo, Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP

                                    For Defendant Michael Shane Downs: James B. Devine, Law Offices of James B. Devine, APC

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer and motion to strike of defendant Michael Shane Downs are ordered off calendar.

Background:

On October 7, 2025, plaintiff Jack Skidmore (Skidmore) initiated this action by filing a verified complaint against defendant Michael Shane Downs (Downs) asserting four causes of action for (1) financial abuse of an elder, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) false promise, and (4) negligent misrepresentation.

As alleged in the complaint:

Skidmore hired ACSB Enterprises, Inc. (ACSB), to perform a remodel of his home. (Compl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Downs is the chief executive officer, secretary, and chief financial officer of ACSB, as well as its only director. (Compl., ¶ 30.)

Downs, secretly and without Skidmore’s knowledge, marked-up subcontractor invoices, materials receipts, and labor costs via dozens of fraudulent invoices. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 18-25.)

When Skidmore raised concerns about the amounts he was being invoiced, the

amount of time the project was taking, and the quality of work that was being done, Downs responded by threatening to pull all the workers off the project and leave the property in disarray. (Compl., ¶¶ 15-17, Exs. B-C.)

ACSB sued Skidmore in the County of Ventura (Ventura Case) to foreclose on a Mechanics’ Lien – attempting to force a sale Skidmore’s home to collect on the fraudulent invoices. (Compl., ¶ 6.)

As part of the Ventura Case, Skidmore eventually acquired some of the subcontractor invoices, some of the time records, and some of the actual receipts for materials. (Compl., ¶ 6.) It was only then that Skidmore confirmed that he was being defrauded. (Ibid.)

Among the confirmed fraudulent invoices, there were $235,299.43 in actual costs that lacked evidentiary backup and $54,858.88 in secret pre-invoice markups. (Compl., ¶¶ 21-23, Exs. D-1 – D-7.)

Downs refused to sit for deposition in the Ventura Case and instead filed for bankruptcy protection for ACSB. (Compl., ¶ 6.) ACSB has few assets and virtually no net value. (Compl., ¶ 7.)

Skidmore filed this action to recover damages from Downs directly based on the alleged torts he committed in his individual capacity. (Compl., ¶¶ 26-34.)

On December 1, 2025, Downs filed a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer argues that each cause of action in the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

On December 1, 2025, Downs also filed a motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

On March 19, 2026, Skidmore filed a consolidated opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike.

On March 20, 2026, counsel for Downs filed a motion to be relieved as counsel in this action. According to this filing, Downs recently passed away on January 29, 2026. (Decl. of James B. Devine ISO Mtn. Rel. as Counsel, ¶ 2.) According to attorney Devine, counsel for Downs in this action: “Mr. Downs passed away on January 29, 2026. On March 19, 2026, [attorney Devine] received a letter from Mr. Downs’ wife Jane downs…. Based on the contents of this letter, it does not appear that any personal representative will be appointed for Mr. Downs. [Attorney Devine] no longer [has] a client with whom [he] can communicate or receive direction….” (Ibid. & Ex. 1.)

Analysis:

The record before the court indicates that Downs, the moving party on the pending demurrer and motion to strike set for this hearing, has passed away. (Decl. of James B. Devine ISO Mtn. Rel. as Counsel, ¶ 2.) Downs’ counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel in this action arguing, among other reasons, he no longer has a client with whom he can communicate or receive direction as to this action. (Ibid.) Downs’ counsel has informed the court that no personal representative of Downs has been appointed at this time. (Ibid. & Ex. 1.)

“Subject to Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims, a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.40.)

“On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.41.)

Under the circumstances present here, and as the court has no record showing that Skidmore has filed a motion to allow these proceedings to continue against any personal representative or successor in interest of Downs, the court will order the demurrer and motion to strike off-calendar subject to resetting by any personal representative or successor in interest of Downs, if appropriate. Further, the court will require appearances at the hearing. Plaintiff shall be prepared to discuss the manner in which he intends to proceed, including as against any personal representative or successor in interest.