Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01561, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01561    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed: 3/29/24

MOVING PARTY: Counsel of record, Theodore Theodosiadis, for Plaintiff Peter Farkas (the “Counsel”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Counsel for Plaintiff Peter Farkas

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiff Peter Farkas’ (“Plaintiff” or “Farkas”) rental of the recreational room (Room) at an RV park owned by Defendants Stewart Silver and Oceans 11 RV Park, LLC dba Cali Lake RV Resort (Cali Lake RV Resort) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff contends that Defendants improperly converted the room into a dwelling unit and he rented it as such. Defendants contend, in their demurrer, that they rented the Room to Farkas for storage purposes only and he and his friend began to reside in the unit in violation of the agreement.

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendants, which was subsequently amended on June 22, 2023, alleging: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Violation of Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1) and (7) Private Nuisance.

On December 11, 2023, Department F47 Court sustained in part Defendants’ demurrer filed on July 26, 2023, thereby granting Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of Action.

Subsequently, on December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Violation of Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1.) Following this, on January 24, 2024, Defendants filed their Answer to the SAC.

On March 29, 2024, Counsel filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply 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 Council 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).)

Here, Counsel has filed Judicial Council Forms MC-051 and MC-052. Counsel has also lodged Judicial Council Form MC-053 with the Court.

Counsel has provided a declaration stating that the Motion is necessitated by “specific facts ... are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6068(e), rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney client privilege (Ev[id.] [Code] § 950).” (MC-052, ¶ 2.) Additionally, Counsel provides that “In the event that this Court desires further information to ascertain the good faith basis for this motion and for withdrawal, it is respectfully requested that the court have an in camera hearing outside of the presence of all other parties so that the specific facts demonstrating good cause for this withdrawal may be demonstrated to the court. See,e.g., Manfredi & Levine v Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1136-1137, 3-700(B) or (C)..” (Ibid.)

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. (MC-052, ¶ 3(a)(2).) Moreover, Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days that this address is current by email. (Id. ¶ 3(b)(2)(c).)

However, having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds the following defects:

-          Counsel has not completed section 6 on Form MC-053 regarding the client’s current or last known address and telephone number.

-          Information is missing in sections 7-9 on Form MC-053 regarding future hearing and trial.

Based on the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to allow additional time for Counsel to address the defects in the mandatory Judicial Council Form MC-053.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Peter Farkas’s Counsel Theodore Theodosiadis’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED.

Moving counsel to give notice.