Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01604, Date: 2024-11-18 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: 23CHCV01604    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed: 7/31/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Janet Cazarez’s counsel Carol L. Newman

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Counsel Carol L. Newman for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Janet Cazarez.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for partition by sale of the real property located at 8900 Geyser Avenue, Northridge, California 91324 (the “Subject Property”).

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant David Reyes (“David”) filed a Complaint against Defendants/Cross-Complainants Manuel Reyes (“Manuel”), Janet Cazarez (“Cazarez”), all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property described in the Complaint, and Does 1 through 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Partition by Sale of Real Property (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.210.), (2) Accounting of Rents and Profits, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Conversion, (5) Trespass, (6) Injunctive Relief, and (7) For Appointment of A Receiver. Subsequently, Cazarez and Manuel filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on July 28, and August 3, 2023.

On July 31, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Cazarez filed her Cross-Complaint (“7/31/23 Cross-Complaint”) against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant David, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Manuel, and Roes 1 through 10, for Declaratory Relief. Subsequently, David and Manuel filed their respective Answers to the 7/31/23 Cross-Complaint on August 25, and December 6, 2023.

On August 4, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Manuel filed his Cross-Complaint (“8/4/23 Cross-Complaint”) against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant David, and Cross-Defendant Gloria Huizar, both individually (“Huizar”) and as Trustee for the Gloria Huizar Trust dated 12/20/2011 (“Huizar as Trustee”), all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property described in the Complaint, and Roes 1 through 20, for Partition of Real Property by Sale (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.210). Subsequently, David and Huizar as Trustee filed their respective Answers to the 8/4/23 Cross-Complaint on September 1, 2023, and March 15, 2024.

On July 31, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Cazarez’s counsel, Carol L. Newman (“Counsel” or “Newman”), filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (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(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 that “[t]he client has failed repeatedly to cooperate with counsel and has made it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively [Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(4)]. There has been a breakdown in the Attorney-Client relationship.” (MC-052, ¶ 2.)

The Court finds Counsel’s reasons for seeking relief to be satisfactory.

Counsel states in the declaration that the Motion was served by mail at Cazarez’s last known address, for which Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current “by conversation.” (MC-052, ¶ 3b(2)(c).) Counsel has filed Proof of Service, demonstrating that proper service was made on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

Counsel indicates on the MC-052 and MC-053 forms that the next hearing scheduled for this action is a Mandatory Settlement Conference, set for December 12, 2024, in this department. (MC-052, ¶ 4.) A jury trial is set for April 7, 2025. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

CONCLUSION

Counsel Carol L. Newman’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Janet Cazarez is GRANTED.

Moving Counsel to give notice.