Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00689, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00689    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F49

Date: 3/27/24

Case Name: James Hoseini

v. Reza Abad, et al.

Case # 23CHCV00689

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F2349

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed: 2/20/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s counsel H. Mark Madnick and Kramar Madnick LLP (“Counsel”) 

RESPONDING PARTY: None 

NOTICE: ok 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving counsel H. Mark Madnick as counsel for Plaintiff James Hoseini (“Plaintiff”)

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action stems from alleged fraud by joint venture partners.   

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants Reza Abad, Aiden Bohloul, Teza Products, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1-50. Subsequently, on March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against all Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of written contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) elder abuse, (5) accounting, and (6) constructive trust.

On April 24, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC. On the same day, April 24, 2023, Defendants filed their Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff.

Subsequently, on September 1, 2023, Defendants, and Teza Doors, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) filed their operative First Amendment Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion”)

            No opposing papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

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 Civ. Proc. § 284, subd. (2).) “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.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).)

            In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal service, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

            (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or

(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

            (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) & (2).)

Plaintiff’s Counsel has filed Judicial Counsel Forms MC-051 and MC-052. Additionally, Counsel lodged Judicial Counsel Form MC-053 with the Court. Counsel has provided a declaration stating that the Motion is necessitated by a “James Hoseini aka Jim Hoseini failed to comply with the terms of the written engagement letter entered into by him and Kramar Madnick, LLP[.]” Counsel further declares that his withdraw is due to confidential information, citing California Rules of Professional Conducts Rule 1.16 and Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128. (MC-052, ¶ 2.)

The Court finds Counsel’s reasons for seeking relief to be satisfactory. Counsel states in his declaration that the Motion was served by mail at Plaintiff’s last known address which has been confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current (Id., ¶ 3.) Counsel has also filed a copy of the proof of service, demonstrating proper service on Plaintiff and the counsel representing all Defendants/Cross-Complainants.

The next hearing scheduled for this action is a Mandatory Settlement Conference set for January 21, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311. A trial is set for March 10, 2025 (MC-053, ¶¶ 7, 9.)

Consequently, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Counsel H. Mark Madnick’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Counsel to give notice.