Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 19STCV07425, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling





1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.




2. 
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.




3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING.  The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.




4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS.  Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.




 






Case Number: 19STCV07425    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 26

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

 

 

147-151 W. 25TH ST., LLC,

 

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

GRG Collective, llc, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  19STCV07425

                    (Consolidated with 19STCV39298)

 

  Hearing Date:  July 29, 2022

 

  [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

 

On June 29, 2022, Koletsky, Mancini, Feldman & Morrow LLP (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Yun Taek Kang (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.  

The MC-052 form states that Counsel served Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by telephone, conversation, and by personal inquiry at known address location. 

Counsel states that Client is no longer communicating with counsel and has not executed a substitution counsel, making it unreasonably difficult to carry out Counsel’s responsibilities.

Counsel is ordered to electronically file a revised proposed order on form MC-053 prior to the hearing on this motion and file proof of service on all parties in the instant action. Based on the notice of motion and the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. The proposed order must identify all upcoming hearings and list the address of the Court in all items.  The proposed order on form MC-053 must include the following additional language:

 

-          In Item 6: Client’s current phone number and, if available, email address, for service.

 

-          In Item 9, Counsel must also include the following language “Failure to appear at trial will result in: (1) the Court deeming that Defendant (Client) waives Defendant Client’s appearance for trial, (2) the trial proceeding in Defendant Client’s absence, (3) the entry of judgment against Defendant Client in any amount of damages proven at trial, and (4) dismissal of Defendant Client’s Cross-Complaint.”

 

-          In Item 13, “Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties, including Client, within 3 court days.  Moving Counsel’s failure to file such proof of service will automatically result in the instant order being vacated.”

Counsel is responsible for determining if there are any other hearings scheduled or due dates for discovery for this case, including any motions hearings, which must all be listed in the proposed order.  For each hearing, Counsel must state the date, time, and location of the hearing (“111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, Los Angeles, CA 90012”). For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent.

Provided that Counsel electronically files a revised proposed order before the hearing on this motion and serve all parties the instant motion, the motion to be relieved as counsel will be granted.  Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

The corrected Orders will be signed and filed, and Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Yun Taek Kang, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Orders upon Yun Taek Kang.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proof of service of the signed order on all parties, including Yun Taek Kang.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Yun Taek Kang and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

 

 

DATED: July 29, 2022                                               ___________________________

                                                                              Elaine Lu

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court