Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: October 25, 2024

Case Name: Montes v. Towing Solutions, LLC et al.

Case No.: 24STCV05603

Motion: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Plaintiff’s Counsel Vicken H. Hagopian

Responding Party: N/A

Tentative Ruling: The Court DENIES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Background

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff Manuel Olmos Montes (“Plaintiff” or “the client”) filed this action against Defendants Towing Solutions, LLC, Jose R. Rodriguez Lopez, and Does 1 to 50 (collectively “Defendants”). This action arises from an accident in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lopez negligently operated his tow truck, owned by Towing Solutions, LLC, such that vehicle he was towing unlatched and impacted Plaintiff, causing injuries. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence (Pedestrian), (2) Negligence, and (3) Res Ipsa Loquitor.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney Vicken H. Hagopian (“Counsel Hagopian”) filed this unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Legal Standard

A motion to be relieved as counsel requires compliance with CRC, Rule 3.1362. The Rule requires the following: (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 CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)); and (4) proof of service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on all other parties who have appeared in the case.

Discussion

Counsel Hagopian filed the notice of motion and motion (MC-051). The notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel has proof of service attached certifying that it was mailed to the client and Defendant Towing Solutions, LLC. The Court notes that Defendant Jose R. Rodriguez Lopez has not appeared in the case, and thus need not be served.

Counsel Hagopian also filed the declaration in support (MC-052), which states that this motion was made because the client has been unreachable. In September 2024, Counsel Hagopian’s office called the client 11 times and sent 4 text messages and one letter. (Hagopian Decl., ¶ 2.) There is no proof of service for the declaration. While the declaration indicates the client was served with the motion papers and the declaration, it is unclear whether Towing Solutions, LLC was served with the declaration. Further, while the declaration states that Counsel Hagopian served the client via mail at his last known address (Hagopian Decl., ¶ 3(a).), Counsel Hagopian has not properly verified that the client’s last known address is the client’s current address. According to the declaration, Counsel Hagopian confirmed that the client’s address is current within the past 30 days by “11 or more unanswered phone calls,” “4 text messages were not rejected and no response,” and “1st class mail was not returned and no response.” (Hagopian Decl., ¶ 3(b).) The Court finds that the client’s silence does not verify that his address is current. CRC, Rule 3.1362(d) states that “As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.” Counsel Hagopian assumes the fact that the calls, text messages, and letter to client were not rejected or sent back is sufficient to prove the client’s current address, but the Court finds otherwise according to CRC, Rule 3.1362(d).

Lastly, Counsel Hagopian filed a proposed order (MC-053) but has not attached proof of service.

The Court DENIES the motion because (1) there is no proof of service for the declaration (MC-052) or the proposed order (MC-053), and (2) the client’s current address has not been adequately verified.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.