Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23STCP01878, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP01878    Hearing Date: July 19, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Motions Filed: 2/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Natalie Davidson (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Zoya Vladimirskaya; and Cardea Hospice & Palliative Care (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order disqualifying Michael T. Stoller and his law firm, Stoller Law Group, APLC, from representing Defendants in the instant action and any related actions.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is off calendar as moot.

Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This action concerns a business dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant Vladimirskaya, who are equal sole shareholders, directors, and officers of nominal Defendant Cardea Hospice & Palliative Care (“Cardea”). (Compl. ¶¶ 7–9.) Plaintiff alleges that on 2/7/23, Vladimirskaya tendered her resignation as an officer of Cardea and offered to sell her shares. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff further alleges that Vladimirskaya, inter alia, wrongfully converted corporate funds to herself and others, attempted to evict Cardea from its rental unit, and demanded that the business be shut down. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

On 5/31/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, individually and on behalf of Cardea, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Vladimirskaya); (2) Conversion (against Vladimirskaya); (3) Money Had and Received (against Vladimirskaya); (4) Declaratory Relief (against Defendants); and (5) Removal Pursual to Corporations Code § 304 (against Defendants). On 9/14/23, Defendants filed their answer.

On 2/13/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to disqualify. No oppositions have been filed to date. On 7/15/24, Defendants filed a substitution of attorney stating that they are now represented by Christopher J. Hamner of Hamner Law Offices, APLC.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the motion to disqualify Defendants’ counsel is therefore moot. The Court notes that this conclusion does not preclude Plaintiff from bringing a new motion to disqualify against Defendants’ new counsel. The Court also acknowledges that should a new motion be filed, based on the Court’s impacted calendar, the new date may significantly delay this matter.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel is invited to call the Court to inquire about advancing any distant reserved motion date.

¿ 

CONCLUSION

The motion is off calendar as moot.