Giving Up On Grossman Prosecution, Upland Does Not Amend Criminal Complaint

(December 25)  The criminal case the city of Upland had pursued against attorney Marc Grossman was closed out with absolute finality on December 22 when San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Gerard Brown dismissed the case in the interest of justice.
On August 6, the city cited Grossman, the proprietor of a law firm which employs eight attorneys and twelve support staff including paralegals, investigators and clerical workers operating out of an office he owns located at 100 North Euclid Avenue, for not having a business license on display for a second hand store/pawn shop he was running out of a second building he owns in Upland, this one located at 525 North Central Avenue. Rather than pursuing the case as an infraction, the city ratcheted the matter up to the status of a misdemeanor, citing him for two separate violations of the business and professions code in addition to the city citation for not having an Upland business permit.
The business and professions code charges were within the county district attorney’s prosecutorial province. After examining the facts in the case, the district attorney declined to proceed against Grossman. The city used its municipal prosecutor,Dan Peelman to initiate a prosecution of Grossman on the business permit matter, filing criminal charges against him in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga. Grossman’s attorney, Michael Vollandt, filed a demurrer motion with regard to the charge, challenging both the legal and factual sufficiency of criminal charges. If a court grants a demurrer motion in total, the charges are dismissed.
With respect to the charges against Grossman, Volandt was able to demonstrate that Grossman and the individual running the second hand store/pawn shop at 525 Central Avenue, Romie Singh, had previously secured an Upland business license for the establishment and that in February 2014, the license for this year was renewed and paid for. The city had not forwarded the license to the business, thus preventing Grossman and Singh from being able to display the 2014 business license on the premises.
Apprised of these circumstances in the demurrer, Judge Brown on December 12 dismissed the city’s case against Grossman,but gave Peelman and the city leave to amend the criminal complaint within ten days. Brown scheduled an arraignment date of December 22 on those amended charges on the prospect that the city would amend and refile a case against Grossman.
Peelman did not file an amended complaint against Grossman and on December 22, Peelman failed to show up for the arraignment.
Judge Brown, noting that “the complaint has not been amended within 10 days,” ordered that the “matter be dismissed by a matter of law.”
The minute order in the case reflects that “on the motion of the court, count 1 is dismissed in the interest of justice.”

Leave a Reply