Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00669, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00669    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: R

MIRACLE ESTATE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs LIHUA GUO, et al. (22PSCV00669)

________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s Attorney Jonathan Goldstein’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Attorney Jonathan Goldstein’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED effective upon [see below]

Background

This case arises from a business dispute. Plaintiff MIRACLE ESTATE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company alleges that Defendants LIHUA GUO and LEANN LI “intentionally induced Plaintiff MIRACLE into entering into a legal and/or agency relationship with Defendant GUO based on the Defendants false and misleading representations and promises that Defendant GUO:(a) had the requisite qualifications to manage a Limited Liability Company like Plaintiff MIRACLE; (b) had the requisite ability to competently perform the essential duties of the job of Manager of a Limited Liability Company like Plaintiff MIRACLE; (c) could satisfy the legal residency and work authorization requirement necessary for employment in the United States and for the position of Manager at Plaintiff MIRACLE (d) had the ability to act and serve in the role of Manager in the best interest of Plaintiff MIRACLE and all its members equally; and (e) had ability to act and serve in the role of Manager without engaging/ in any act, omission, and/or misconduct that would result in substantial harm, injury, loss, and/or damage to Plaintiff MIRACLE.”

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for:

1. Fraud (Deceit)

2. Intentional Misrepresentation

3. Negligent Misrepresentation

4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

5. Promissory Estoppel

6. Unfair Business Practice in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq. and

7. Declaratory & Injunctive Relief

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Discussion

Counsel explains that a conflict of interest requires his withdrawal.

Here, as (i) Defendants have not yet answered, (ii) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition objecting to counsel’s motion, and (iii) no substantive motions have yet been filed in the case, there appears to be no signs of prejudice.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to Plaintiff, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.