Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV47444, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47444    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

BENJAMIN RABBANIAN, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HOURASH KHAZAN,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

IGOR LOPATONOK,

                        Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV47444

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

January 13, 2023

 

 

On December 7, 2022, Defendant, Igor Lopatonok’s (“Defendant”) attorney of record, Kris S. Lefan (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel, contending that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and that irreconcilable differences have arisen. 

 

On November 28, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice Counsel’s prior request to be relieved as counsel because Counsel did not timely file or serve the motion at least 16 court days before the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b).

 

Here, Counsel has properly served and timely filed the instant motion. On December 6, 2022, Counsel served Defendant and Plaintiff’s counsel by mail. [1] On December 7, 2022, Counsel filed the notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel, a declaration in support of the motion, and a proposed order granting the motion. Where service is by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing is increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California as was the case here, pursuant to C.C.P. § 1005(b). Here, 16 court days prior to hearing plus 5 calendar days for service by mail made the deadline for service and filing of the motion December 15, 2022. Accordingly, as Counsel served the motion, declaration, and proposed order on December 6, 2022, and filed it on December 7, 2022, service and filing were timely.

 

The motion is unopposed and granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.  A non-jury trial is scheduled for June 28, 2023. This provides adequate time for Defendant to obtain new counsel. 

 

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 13th day of January, 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The documents were sent by email and regular mail to opposing counsel and Defendant.  However, 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.