Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: KC067763, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC067763 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: R
Roic
California, LLC v. Welch Management Corporation, et al. (KC067763)
________________________________________________________________________
(1)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for SABINA EUBANKS
(2)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for KEITH
GALUS
(3)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Charles
H. Osborn
(4)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for John
T. Eubanks
(5)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Judith
Osbron[1]
(6)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Welch
Management Corporation
Tentative Ruling
(1)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for SABINA EUBANKS is GRANTED.
(2)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for KEITH
GALUS is GRANTED.
(3)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Charles
H. Osborn is GRANTED.
(4)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for John
T. Eubanks is GRANTED.
(5)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Judith
Osbron is GRANTED.
(6)
Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Welch
Management Corporation is GRANTED.
Background
On
December 22, 2014, the instant action was filed.
On March 24, 2016, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement, Stipulation
for Entry of Judgment, and Stipulation for the Court to Retain Jurisdiction in
the above-entitled matter.
On August 1, 2022, Defense Counsel MAXWELL R. SCHRIEFFER of P.K. Schrieffer LLP,
Counsel for Defendants Welch Management Corporation, John T. Eubanks, Sabina
Eubanks, Charles H. Osborn, Judith Eubanks, and Keith Galus, filed six motions
to be relieved as counsel.
Discussion
Defense Counsel moves to be relieved as counsel because following the execution of the settlement
agreement, the firm has not had contact with Defendants in any capacity until
having received a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel on August 20, 2021,
concerning Defendants’ failure to satisfy the settlement amount. Despite P.K.
Schrieffer LLP’s repeated attempts to contact Defendants about its required
payments, it has not received a response. In short, Defendants have abandoned
their obligations under the stipulation.
Thus, as (i) the prejudice appears to be Plaintiff and (ii)
Defendants’ conduct is disrupting the orderly process of justice, the court
exercises its discretion to grant the motion. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d
398.)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court grants the Motion, 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.