Randall Harrah v. Stuart D. Grossman, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY: Parker, Milliken, Clark, O’Hara & Samuelian, A Prof. Corp. (Counsel for Plaintiff Randall Harrah)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a dispute among present and/or former officers of Harrah Logistics Group, Inc. Plaintiff Randall Harrah served as President and a shareholder of the Company. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are also officers of the Company, wrongfully removed him from his position and falsely accused him of misappropriating Company funds. Plaintiff now brings this action for (1) Enforcement of Right of Inspection; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Accounting; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Injunctive Relief; (6) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (7) Conversion; (8) Unjust Enrichment; (9) Declaratory Relief; (10) Fraud; and (11) Defamation.

Defendants have filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for (1) breach of implied-in-fact contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) money had and received; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) assault; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Parker, Milliken, Clark, O’Hara & Samuelian, counsel for Plaintiff, now moves to be relieved as counsel.  The motion is unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Legal Standard

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284, subdivision¿(2), California Rules of Court rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP section¿284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-053)).¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client and opposing counsel by mail and electronically on January 10, 2023. (See Proof of Service.)  

Moving counsel provides only that “[w]ithdrawal is permitted pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b),” and that “additional information will be provided to the Court in camera,” if necessary. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) That Rule provides grounds for discretionary termination of representation.

There is no opposition to this motion. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by movant.  Trial in this matter is not set until February 13, 2024, leaving Plaintiff sufficient time to retain new counsel, if desired.

Accordingly, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 15, 2023 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court