Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00844, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00844    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: R

Ricardo Fernandez, et al. v. Raul Trevino, et al. (21PSCV00844)

Plaintiffs Counsel Robert J. Spitz’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Counsel Robert J. Spitz’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED effective upon [see below]

Background

This case arises from a business dispute. Plaintiff alleges as follows: In or about February 2020, Plaintiffs Ricardo Fernandez and Anarbys Abrahante (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) entered into an oral partnership agreement with Defendant Raul Trevino (“Defendant”) to establish a Slaters 50/50 franchise (“Business”) at Defendant’s Building located at 201 N. Citrus Avenue, Covina, California (“Property”). Defendants requested Plaintiffs to enter into a Commercial Lease Agreement dated March I, 2020 ("Lease") for the 1^st floor of the Property. Prior to entering the Lease, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that conditions to the Lease would include: Plaintiffs shall have all appropriate permits and licenses, which would require assistance from Defendants to obtain, and then after that, Plaintiffs would have three additional months to do construction. In addition, up until the time that Plaintiffs' construction is completed, Plaintiff would not pay Defendants any rent. Plaintiffs later learned that that Defendant failed to substantially perform all of the conditions of the Partnership Agreement, such as failing to timely submit plans to the city for permits, fail to move the liquor license to the second floor, and failed to submit complete proposals to the city. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in that they have contributed $200,000.00 and all start up costs for a business that is not yet in operation.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant and Does 1-50 for:

1.      Breach of Partnership Agreement,

2.      Breach of Fiduciary Duty,

3.      Intentional Misrepresentation,

4.      Negligent Misrepresentation,

5.      Promissory Fraud,

6.      Promissory Estoppel,

7.      Intentional Interference with business Relationship (Economic Advantage),

8.      Unfair Business Competition, and

9.      Declaratory Relief[1]

On November 24, 2021, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against RICARDO FERNANDEZ, an individual and doing business as SUPRA DESIGN INC JUAN FERNANDEZ, an individual, ANARBYS ABRAHANTE, an individual, FERVINO, INC.,[2] a California corporation and ROES 1 – 50, INCLUSIVE alleging

1.      Breach of Contract,

2.      Intentional Fraud,

3.      Fraud, Suppression of Facts,

4.      Breach of Fiduciary Duty,

5.      Accounting,

6.      Conspiracy,

7.      Conversion,

8.      Injunction, and

9.      Declaratory Relief

On November 24, 2021, Defendant filed his Answer.

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Answer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Consolidation and Stay of UDA.

On July 6, 2022, Fernandez filed a Cross-Complaint.

On August 16, 2022, Counsel Robert J. Spitz filed the instant motion.

Discussion

As Counsel states that there has been a breach of the retainer agreement, the court finds good cause to grant the request.

Therefore, as all requirements have been met, the motion is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to Plaintiff, Defendant, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.