Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01191787, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Fafa Ue’s motion to compel answers to form interrogatories, set one, from Plaintiff Ron Dayan, is denied.

Based on the court’s docket, defense counsel may believe that Plaintiff represents himself after Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to file a substitution of counsel form on February 16, 2022.  (ROA 28.)  Defense counsel was presumably served with the substitution of counsel form.  On February 18, 2022, the Clerk’s Office rejected the substitution of attorney form, noting “Item 1 on page 2 of form MC-050 cannot be left blank.  Please revise and resubmit.”  (ROA 28.)  Plaintiff’s counsel never resubmitted a substitution of attorney form. Plaintiff’s counsel apparently did not communicate to Plaintiff that the substitution of attorney form had been rejected.  The Law Offices of Benjamin Taylor is still counsel of record for Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the relevant discovery was served on Plaintiff directly on March 4, 2022, after defense counsel confirmed that electronic service was acceptable to Plaintiff. (See Manoussi Decl., at ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. A, B.) 

If the client consents to the attorney's withdrawal, it can be effectuated by the attorney and client signing and filing the mandatory Judicial Council form MC-050 Substitution of Attorney—Civil (Without Court Order) in the pending action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (1); In re Haro (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1021, 1029, & fn. 2 [statute applies to criminal as well as civil proceedings].) Although court approval is not required, the statute requires that the Substitution of Counsel form be “filed with the clerk”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (1).)  Thus, a change of attorney by consent of the client and attorney must be recorded by filing it with the clerk or entering it upon the minutes of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)  Failure to record a substitution will cause it to be ineffective.  (See Epley v. Califro (1958) 49 Cal.2d 849, 853-854.)

Accordingly, service of the relevant discovery upon Plaintiff, instead of Plaintiff’s counsel of record, was improper.  Defendant cannot move to compel answers to the form interrogatories.  The motion is denied. 

Defendant has three more discovery motions that are scheduled to be heard on August 26, 2022.  To the extent Defendant does not require the Court to hear those discovery motions because they may suffer from the same deficiencies as the instant motion, Defendant should file a notice of withdrawal of motion(s).  A courtesy call to the courtroom would also be appreciated.   

Defendant shall give notice of the ruling to Plaintiff’s counsel of record, The Law Offices of Benjamin Taylor.