Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 19STCV42870, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 19STCV42870    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel Reeder McCreary, LLP filed motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Slauson Gas Station, LLC and Ebrahim Neysanni.

The April 12th motions attach proof of service showing service of the motions on Ebrahim Neysanni and Oscar Rodriguez, with Oscar also named as person authorized to accept service, seemingly for co-Defendant Blueart Interiors. Slauson Gas Station, LLC was dismissed without prejudice on February 22, 2024, based on lack of good standing with the California Secretary of State.

As of this date, Reeder McCreary, LLP’s motions are unopposed.

Reeder McCreary, LLP’s motions are now before the Court.

B. Default and Failure to Prosecute

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Slauson Gas Station, LLC (dismissed on Feb. 22, 2024) and Ebrahim Neysanni secured entries of default against Defendants Oscar Rodriguez and Blueart Interiors.

On March 17, 2022, the Court ordered this action dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to appear at a case management conference that day.

On November 28, 2022, the Court granted a motion to vacate the March 17, 2022, dismissal.

Between March 28, 2023, and May 17, 2024, the Court held various hearings in this action, namely Orders to Show Cause (OSCs) re Default. During that time, and despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s promises regarding Plaintiffs’ intent to obtain default judgment against Defendants Rodriguez and Blueart, Plaintiffs have failed to file a default judgment package against Rodriguez or Blueart.

On March 22, 2024, the Court set an OSC re Dismissal Pursuant to CCP §583.130 for May 17, 2024, which the Court continued on May 17, 2024, from that same day to July 3, 2024, i.e., the present hearing.

II. Motions to be Relieved as Counsel: GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel ([without client consent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section] 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)

For an attorney to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a) and (c) to (e). These subdivisions require that an attorney file and show proof of service of (1) a notice and motion to be relived as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-051, (2) a declaration in support of the motion to be relived as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-052, and (3) a proposed order in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-053.

The court should consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Moreover, the motion should also be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

B. Analysis

The Court GRANTS Reeder McCreary, LLP’s motions as to itself and individual counsel.

First, Plaintiffs’ counsel Reeder McCreary, LLP complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Within 16 court days of the hearing, plus additional days to respond based on manner of service, Reeder McCreary, LLP filed Judicial Council forms MC-051 to MC-053 with the Court and served the same on Ebrahim Neysanni and Oscar Rodriguez, with Oscar accepting service on behalf of Blueart Interiors. A review of the Judicial Council forms filed for each Plaintiff shows that the forms are complete and properly filled out.

Second, there is a valid reason for withdrawal: A conflict of interest has arisen that is sufficiently serious to ethically require counsel to cease performing work on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Third, because there is no trial date in this action, and because no party filed an opposition to Reeder McCreary, LLP’s motions, no prejudice or delay exists to deny Reeder McCreary, LLP’s motions.

III. OSC re Default, OSC re Failure to Prosecute, and Dismissal: 19STCV42870 DISMISSED.

The Court DISMISSES this action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

The Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause Re: Default and the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to CCP §583.130 for Failure to Prosecute on calendar for this action.

IV. Conclusion

A. Motions to be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [Res ID # 2164] is GRANTED.

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [Res ID # 8040] is GRANTED.

B. OSC re Default, OSC re Failure to Prosecute, and Dismissal

This action—LASC No. 19STCV42870—is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Order to Show Cause Re: Default is DISCHARGED.

The Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to CCP §583.130 for Failure to Prosecute is DISCHARGED.