Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV46573, Date: 2022-12-05 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: 20STCV46573 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 26
|
warren
brooks,
et al. Plaintiffs, v. NNc paramount
terrace, llc., et
al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: 20STCV46573 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel |
On October 20, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Friedman
& Chapman, LLP (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as
counsel for Plaintiff Zariah Campbell (“Client”). On that date, Counsel filed a form MC-051 and
MC-052 and a proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.
It is unclear whether Counsel is still
pursuing this motion to be relieved. On
October 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel advised in court: “Plaintiff's counsel
has reestablished contact with Blake Campbell Sr., guardian ad litem for Zariah
Campbell, Zoey Campbell, and Blake Campbell, Jr. Blake Campbell Sr. has opened
a blocked account at Chase Bank for each of Zariah Campbell, Zoey Campbell, and
Blake Campbell, Jr. Plaintiff is waiting for Chase Bank to process the
Confirmation of Deposits into Blocked Accounts.” (10/26/22 Minute Order.)
In any event, even if Plaintiffs’ Counsel
is not withdrawing the instant motion to be relieved, the motion is denied
without prejudice for the following reasons:
Counsel states that there has been a break
down in the attorney-client relationship such that Counsel can no longer
represent Client because of a lack of communication and cooperation by Client’s
Guardian Ad Litem.
The MC-052 form states that Counsel served
Client via mail at Client’s last known mailing address, which Counsel states he
has been unable to confirm as current within 30 days of the motion. Counsel states that he mailed the motion
papers to the Client’s last known address, return receipt requested. Counsel called the Client’s
Guardian Ad Litem’s last known number and emailed Client to request
Client’s current address, but Client’s Guardian Ad Litem has refused to provide
Counsel with his current physical address.
These efforts are insufficient as Counsel indicates that the prior
address of Client is incorrect, and Counsel has been unable to confirm the
address as proper. Given the attached
declaration, it is unclear whether Counsel has been able to contact Client’s
Guardian Ad Litem or Client’s Guardian Ad Litem has ignored Counsel’s attempted
communications. Critically, Counsel has
not confirmed Client’s address through these any of these communications.
California
Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be
relieved.” Rule 3.1362 further provides
that “[m]erely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last
known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message
was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is
current.” (Id. at (d)(2).)
Further, Counsel does not assert that he
confirmed that the address is current by the traditional means of conversation
with persons familiar with Client or conducting any type of search on Form
MC-052.
Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current
within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality
without a purpose. If the Court grants
Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address
for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to
serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicates due process
concerns.
In addition, the proposed order on form
MC-053 must include the following additional language:
-
In Item 6: Client’s current mailing
address, phone number, and if available, email address, for service.
Because Counsel has failed to confirm
within 30 days of the motion that Client’s address is current, Counsel’s motion
to be relieved is denied without prejudice.
Before renewing this motion to be relieved, Counsel must make diligent
and reasonable efforts to obtain a current address for Client, by a combination
of the following means: mailing the motion papers to Client’s last known
address, return receipt requested;
calling Client’s last known telephone numbers; contacting persons familiar with
Client; and conducting searches via Lexis, a private investigator, or other
means. If after making these reasonable
and diligent efforts, Counsel is still unable to locate a current address for
Client, Counsel may renew his motion to be relieved by filing new moving
papers, and properly completing item 3(b)(2) of Form MC-052 to identify all
diligent and reasonable efforts made to attempt to locate a current address for
Client.
DATED: December 5, 2022 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court