Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02477, Date: 2024-10-04 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: 23CHCV02477 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: F49
Dept.
F49 |
Date:
10/4/24 |
Case
Name: Florence Bistline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals d/b/a Kaiser
Foundation Hospital – Santa Clarita, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and
Does 1 to 250 |
Case
No. 23CHCV02477 |
|
LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH VALLEY
DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT
F49
OCTOBER 4,
2024
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
[1183]
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23CHCV02477
Motion
filed: 8/17/24
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Florence Bistline’s counsel Joseph
S. Farzam of Joseph Farzam Law Firm (the “Counsel”)
RESPONDING PARTY: None
NOTICE: OK.
RELIEF
REQUESTED: An
order relieving Counsel Joseph S. Farzam as counsel for Plaintiff Florence Bistline
TENTATIVE
RULING: The
motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff Florence Bistline (“Plaintiff”
or “Bistline”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals d/b/a Kaiser Foundation Hospital – Santa Clarita, Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 to 250, alleging a
single cause of action for wrongful death due to medical negligence.
Subsequently, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on October 31,
2023.
On August 17, 2024, Counsel filed the instant Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion”).
No Opposition papers have been
received by the Court.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 284, “The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be
changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as
follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk,
or entered upon the minutes; 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the
application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.
Here, Counsel has filed Judicial Council Forms MC-051 and
MC-052. Additionally, Counsel has lodged Judicial Council Form MC-053 with the
Court.
The MC-051 form states, in pertinent part, that “Joseph
Farzam Law Firm; Joseph S. Farzam moves under California Code of Civil
Procedure section 284(2) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, for an
order permitting the attorney to be relieved as attorney of record in this
action or proceedings.” (MC-051 ¶ 1.) (Underlines added.)
The MC-052 form also indicates that “Reason for Motion.
Attorney makes this motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil
Procedure section 284(2) instead of filing a consent under section 284(1)
...” (MC-052 ¶ 2.) (Underlines added.)
The proposed order form, MC-053, also states that “Attorney
has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be
granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil
Procedure section 284(2) instead of a consent under section 284(1).”
(MC-053 ¶ 4.) (Underlines added.)
However, Counsel declares that the reason for the motion is
“Both client and counsel agree on the withdrawal.” (MC-052 ¶ 2.) This reason
necessitates a filing based on consent under Civil Procedure section 284(1).
Consequently, it is evident that Counsel has submitted the incorrect forms
which are inapplicable for the stated reason for the withdrawal.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.
CONCLUSION
The
Court DENIES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Plaintiff Florence Bistline’s counsel Joseph S. Farzam of Joseph
Farzam Law Firm.
Moving
counsel to give notice.