Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 19-01092692, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

1. Defendant Eileen Miller's Attorney Adam L. Kidd's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel  ROA 725

2. Defendant Eileen Miller's Attorney JL Sean Slattery's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel ROA 720

3. Defendant Eileen Miller's Attorney David P. Hall's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel ROA 695

4. Defendant Thomas Miller's Attorney Adam L. Kidd's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel ROA 690

5. Defendant Thomas Miller's Attorney JL Sean Slattery's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved ROA 715

6. Defendant Thomas Miller's Attorney David P. Hall's Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel ROA 700

Before the Court are six motions to be relieved as counsel: JL Sean Slatter, David P. Hall, and Adam L. Kidd each move individually to be relieved as counsel for Thomas Miller and Eileen Miller in No. 19-01092692. Six substantially identical motions are on calendar for September 8 in No. 19-01092692, pertaining to Corey Miller and Tiffany Miller. In addition, 12 substantially identical motions are set for hearing on September 8 and September 15 in the related case, No. 20-01176672. Because the Court has questions about the filings that apply to all motions, and to preserve judicial economy, the Court will address all 24 motions in this order.

All 24 motions are CONTINUED to November 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101, as the Court is moving from CX104 effective September 8, 2023. Moving counsel are to file an omnibus brief in No. 19-01092692 addressing the following issues. (To be clear, only one brief is required, not a separate brief for each of the motions.) The supplemental brief is due October 20, 2023.

1. Please provide more information about the nature of the conflict with Dent Wizard, Inc. that requires withdrawal. The Court is curious why counsel now believe there is a conflict with Dent Wizard after jointly representing this entity and all of the Millers in 19-01092692 since at least July 29, 2022 (the date when an answer was filed on behalf of Dent Wizard). What has changed? Also, is there truly a conflict with Dent Wizard in 20-01176672 since that entity is not a party in that case?

2. If the conflict with Dent Wizard requires counsel to withdraw from representing the Millers, may counsel continue to represent the corporate defendants in these matters, each of which is owned by a member of the Miller family? If counsel may continue representing the corporate defendants, why does the conflict require withdrawal from representing the Millers but not the corporate defendants?

3. Counsel declare that Thomas, Eileen, and Corey Miller’s service addresses were confirmed within the last 30 days before service by “review of client documentation.” Did counsel make any effort to speak to the Millers, or did they simply review the file? The Court is concerned that documents in the file in a case dating to 2019 or 2020 may not have an address sufficiently current for service purposes.

4. Counsel declare that they have not spoken with Tiffany Miller in years, and that they attempted to get her current address through Robert Zingg, the corporate defendants’ former business manager. This raises two questions. First, counsel has been filing documents all along on Tiffany Miller’s behalf. Has counsel filed documents in these cases without her knowledge or permission?

5. Second, Zingg is the corporate defendants’ former business manager. Is there reason to believe Zingg might know Tiffany Miller’s current address if he no longer works for her? Why not simply ask other members of the Miller family for her address?