Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 19STCV11143, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Professional Business Properties, Inc.)

Moving Party: Counsel David E. Bower, counsel for Defendants Professional Business Properties, Inc. and Pyramid Technologies, Inc.

Tentative Ruling: The Court therefore grants counsel David Bowers’ motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Professional Business Properties, Inc. and Pyramid Technologies, Inc.

This is an action in which Plaintiff alleges he was defrauded of money lent for supposed real property and cannabis businesses. On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) fraud—intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and false promise, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) actual fraud—intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditor, (4) constructive fraud, (5) reformation of contract, (6) judicial foreclosure of real property, (7) judicial foreclosure of security interest, (8) breach of written contract, (9) breach of oral contract, (10) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (11) common count, (12) conversion, (13) unfair business practices, (14) breach of fiduciary duty, (15) declaratory relief, and (16) accounting.

On February 21, 2024, the Court issued a statement of decision after bench trial. The Court found in Plaintiff’s favor on the FAC against Defendants Mavusi, Pyramid Technologies< Inc. and Professional Business Properties, Inc. The Court found against Plaintiff on the FAC against Defenant Motal or any entity owned by Motal. The Court ordered that Mavusi and Haig Mgrdichian take nothing by their cross-complaints.

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after

judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from

one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where

conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation.

(See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a

motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi &

Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) The court should consider whether

the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 requires: (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the

confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure

section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section

284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—

Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other

parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on

the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

Here, counsel has filed the necessary paperwork. For each Defendant, counsel has filed a notice of motion and motion on Form MC-051, a declaration in support on Form MC-052, a proposed order on Form MC-053, and proof of service by email and physical mail.

In his declarations in support, on Item 3b.(1)(c), counsel Bowers indicates confirmation of the clients’ addresses by conversation within the past 30 days. Bowers also reviewed the most current Secretary of State filing of Statements of Information for the corporate clients. Based on counsel’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that service has been properly effectuated.

In his declarations in support, counsel also he must withdraw due to health reasons. Bowers testifies that he has stage IV kidney failure and will require a kidney transplant. Bowers will be incapacitated for an indefinite amount of time.

Based on these representations, the Court agrees that counsel's withdrawal would not harm the administration of justice. Due to counsel’s health, he can no longer represent Defendants. Furthermore, counsel's withdrawal will not prejudice Defendants. The action is post-judgment.

The Court therefore grants counsel David Bowers’ motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Professional Business Properties, Inc. and Pyramid Technologies, Inc.

Department 58