Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV21977, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21977(2)    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 14

Corbin v. 720 Normandie

Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that their landlords rented them an apartment that had a terrible mold problem. They allege that before the issues were resolved, the landlords sold the property. Plaintiffs allege that the new landlords did not completely fix the problem and ultimately evicted them in retaliation for their complaints.

            On March 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Nuisance (Negligent), (4) Nuisance (Intentional), (5) Negligence, (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (7) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and (8) Premises Liability against Defendants 720 Normandie LP, 720 Normandie Partnership, Inc. (collectively “Normandie”), Prana Investments (“Prana”), Prana Holding Company, LLC, Vine Property Services, Inc. (“Vine”), Citywide Property Management and Consulting Inc., erroneously sued as “Kim & Casey Property Management” (“Citywide”), Statewide Enterprises, Inc. (“Statewide”), Defendants Jamison Services, Inc. (“Jamison”), 709 S. Mariposa Ave., LLC (“Mariposa”), and DOES 4-50.

            On July 26, 2023, this court sustained the demurrer of Defendants Prana, Citywide, and Statewide to the third and eighth causes of action, without leave to amend. On the same date, this court sustained the demurrer of Defendants Normandie, Jamison, and Vine to the third cause of action, without leave to amend.

            On August 1, 2023, Defendants Prana and Statewide filed their joint Answer.

            On August 7, 2023, Defendants Normandie and Jamison filed their joint Answer.

            On August 9, 2023, Defendant Vine filed its Answer.

            On August 11, 2023, Defendant Citywide filed its Answer.

Defendants Prana Holding Company, LLC was served with the original complaint on October 14, 2022. Defendant Mariposa was served with the original complaint on December 5, 2022. There is no proof of service indicating that either defendant has been served with the FAC. Neither has filed any sort of responsive pleading.

On October 21, 2022, the personal injury courts found that the case was erroneously filed in the personal injury hub. The case was reassigned to Judge Stephanie Bowick, sitting in Department 19 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a peremptory challenge and the case was reassigned to this department.

            Jury trial is currently set for May 13, 2024.

Instant Motions

Attorney Mark L. Venardi (“Venardi”) now seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs.

Decision

            The motions are GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed orders upon the clients.

Governing Rule

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that counsel fill out forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. These forms serve two basic functions: (1) ensuring that notice is given to the client and (2) providing the court with an adequate explanation of why the matter is being handled via motion rather than mutual consent. See Code of Civil Procedure § 284; California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362.

Discussion

            Counsel Vendardi has completed the required forms. Those forms indicate that the client has been served by mail at the most recent address counsel can find.

            Counsel Venardi indicates that he and his firm wish to withdraw because the clients have fired them, but refuse to sign a substitution form.

            Counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1362, and relief is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The motions are GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed orders upon the clients.