Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01191787, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Fafa Ue’s motions to compel answers to special interrogatories and requests for production of documents from Plaintiff Ron Dayan, are denied.  Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the requests for admissions is also 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 Decls., 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 special interrogatories and request for production of documents.  Defendant also cannot move to deem admitted the requests for admissions.  The motions are denied. 

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