Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV02202, Date: 2024-04-10 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: 23STCV02202    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

On March 8, 2024, Jilbert Tahmazian, Esq. and Tahmazian Law Firm, P.C. filed a (1) a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant T-1 Lightning, Inc. on Judicial Council form MC-051, (2) a declaration in support of their motion to be relieved as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-052, and (3) a proposed order in support of their motion to be relieved as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-053. All three of these filings attach proofs of service showing service on Defendant T-1 Lightning, Inc. via mail but failing to show service on Plaintiff Shanghai Hongbao Lightning Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Hongbao). (3/8/24 MC-051, MC-052, MC-053, Proofs of Service.)

The motion is unopposed.

A motion to be relieved as counsel must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. A court may deny a motion to relieve counsel based on undue prejudice or undue delay. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

Here, Jilbert Tahmazian, Esq. and Tahmazian Law Firm, P.C. comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 by filing properly filled out Judicial Council forms MC-051 to MC-053 and attaching proofs of service for the same on Defendant T-1 Lightning, Inc. However, the Court notes that this motion does not appear to have been served on Plaintiff Shanghai Hongbao. (3/8/24 MC-051, MC-052, MC-053, Proofs of Service.)

The motion also gives a proper reason for withdrawal as part of Judicial Council form MC-052: Defendant cannot pay fees, and ongoing representation without payment of fees will cause hardship to counsel. (3/8/24 MC-052, § 2.)

The Court otherwise notes that because no trial is set in this action, which was initiated on February 1, 2023, no undue prejudice or delay exists to deny this motion.

Jilbert Tahmazian, Esq. and Tahmazian Law Firm, P.C.’s motion is thus GRANTED, conditioned on proof of service of counsel’s motion on Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s non-opposition to withdrawal at the hearing.

Defendant T-1 Lightning, Inc., is advised of its need to find a substitute attorney, or it will face the possibility of a dismissal or default for lack of representation. This is because in California, a company cannot represent itself in court. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5 [court has duty to inform corporate client of need for representation].)

Withdrawal SHALL not be effective until proof of service of this order is filed with the Court showing service of this order on all parties, as granted without conditions.