Lawzilla Additional Information: It is believed the final order was to deny the motion.

18-CIV-02161 STEPHEN L. PORTER VS. FOX BAYSHORE INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.

STEPHEN L. PORTER FOX BAYSHORE INVESTMENTS, LLC
HEATHER J. ZACHARIA

CROSS COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ROBERT EASSA, DUANE MORRIS AND EASSA’S PRIOR LAW FIRMS TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion to disqualify attorney Robert Eassa, the law firm of Duane Morris, and any other law firm through which Mr. Eassa represented Fox Bayshore Investments, is granted.
1. The Complaint

Moving parties Omer Tamturk and Erler Family Trust base this motion on the premise that Attorney Eassa presently represents Fox Bayshore on one side and Steven Porter on the other, and their respective positions are adverse. Fox Bayshore is named only as a nominal defendant, whose interests are not adverse to Plaintiff Stephen Porter. In the complaint, Attorney Eassa is not representing any interest that is adverse to Fox Bayshore.

2. The Cross-complaint.

The Cross-complaint alleges that the acts of Stephen Porter resulted in Fox Bayshore providing funds to purchase DeRitz LLC, but the DeRitz memberships went to Stephen Porter, Beckman, Chris Porter, and Orhan Tolu, whereas Fox Bayshore received no interests. If Tamturk and the Erler Family Trust prevail on their cross-complaint, Fox Bayshore potentially will receive membership interests in DeRitz. In this manner, Porter’s interests in defending against the crosscomplaint are adverse to Fox Bayshore, which could benefit if the cross-complaint is successful. Since the interests of Porter and Beckman are adverse to those of Fox Bayshore, a conflict of interest exists that justifies disqualifying Attorney Eassa.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.