Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV22132, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22132    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Barry Henning (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“Defendant”), et al. alleging he was violently attacked by 99 Cents’ employee, Doe 1, while at 99 Cents’ Store.   

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Barry Henning (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, contending relief is necessary because irreconcilable differences have arisen that prevent Counsel from prosecuting this case on Plaintiff’s behalf.  Counsel declares it served the moving papers on Plaintiff via mail at Plaintiff’s last known address after confirming the address as current through Plaintiff’s and public records, and by serving Plaintiff via email.  Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and on Defendant. 

To the extent that Counsel indicates Counsel served Plaintiff at an active email address, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d)(2) states: “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.”  The Court cannot locate any such declaration with Counsel’s motion.

As to Counsel’s assertion that Plaintiff’s address was confirmed as current through Plaintiff’s records and public records, the Court wishes to hear from Counsel concerning what the search involved in confirming Plaintiff’s address within the past 30 days of filing the motion.  Assuming the Court is satisfied with confirmation of the client’s address, the motion will be granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.  The Court notes the next scheduled matter is a Final Status Conference set for July 19, 2023, and trial is not scheduled until August 2, 2023.  Therefore, there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to seek other counsel or otherwise prepare prior to trial.

If Counsel is unable to show that they served Plaintiff at a confirmed address, then the requirement that Counsel serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court pursuant to CCP §1011(b) and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d) would preclude the granting of the motion. 

Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 9^th day of January 2023