Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 23STCV16364, Date: 2024-02-23 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: 23STCV16364    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 26

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

 

FUEL BREAK, INC.,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

Ozopac inc. dba V-RED WEST COVINA; ELENA NIKOLAYEVNA KOROTEEVA et al.

 

                        Defendant.

 

  Case No.:  23STCV16364

 

  Hearing Date:  February 23, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to be relieved as counsel

 

 

On January 18, 2024, Bleau Fox, a Professional Law Corporation (“Counsel”), filed the instant motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Elena Nikolayevna Koroteeva and Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina (jointly, “Clients”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to each Client 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 Clients via mail at Clients’ last known mailing address which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by conversing with Clients through email.

Counsel states “[t]here has been a breakdown in attorney-client communication preventing [Counsel] from zealously representing the client. [Clients] ha[ve] failed and continues failing to cooperate with his counsel. Furthermore, [Clients] ha[ve] failed to fulfill [their] financial obligations.” 

Counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing and submit corrected MC-051 and MC-052 forms as well as a corrected proposed order on form MC-053.  Provided that such corrected forms are submitted, based on the declaration filed by Counsel, the Court is inclined to grant the motions.  However, the motions and declarations on forms MC-051 and MC-052 and the proposed order on form MC-053 for each Client have not been properly completed.

The Court’s records show the following upcoming hearings, which must all be listed in the revised proposed order (MC-053) for each Client:

 

-       In item 7 (next scheduled hearing): “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication set for April 26, 2024 at 8:30 am at 111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, L.A., CA 90012.  Failure to file timely written opposition papers or failure to appear at the April 26, 2024 hearing may result in the Court granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or adjudication.”;

 

 

-       In Item 8 (additional hearings): “Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of unnamed Doe defendants and Roe cross-defendants set for May 24, 2024 at 8:30 am at 111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 26, L.A., CA 90012”

 

 

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

 

-       Additional language for Item 13 for Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina only: “A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before this Court. Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina is ordered to file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of this signed order and to appear on April 3, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 26 with its new counsel.  Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina’s failure to timely retain new counsel or failure to appear on April 3, 2024 may result in the answer being stricken, the entry of default and default judgment against Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina.  Moving Counsel is ordered to file proof of service of this signed order on all parties within 3 days.”

 

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.

As to defendant Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina, the Court notes that while a corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.  (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)  “[A Corporation] must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.  (Id.; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) However, “[a]n attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc., supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at 504.)

In light of these authorities, the Court will require that Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of the signed order (MC-053) so that new counsel will be prepared for trial by the current trial date.  The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina’s representation for April 3, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 26.  Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina is ordered to appear on April 3, 2024 with its new counsel, who should be prepared to address counsel’s readiness for trial by the current trial date. 

If Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina fails to file a substitution of counsel within 30 days of service of the signed order, Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina is ordered to appear on April 3, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 26 and show cause why Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina’s answer should not be stricken, and why default and default judgment should not be entered against Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina on Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina’s failure to appear on April 3, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 26 shall be deemed consent to: striking of Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina’s answer, and entry of default and default judgment against Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina on Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The proposed orders (MC-053) are to be corrected to add the April 3, 2024 OSC hearing to items 8 and 13, and to add the following language to item 9: “Failure to appear at trial will result in: (1) the Court deeming that Defendant waives Defendant’s appearance for trial, (2) the trial proceeding in Defendant’s absence, and (3) the entry of judgment against Defendant in any amount of damages proven at trial.”

The corrected Orders will be signed and filed, and Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants Elena Nikolayevna Koroteeva and Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Orders upon each client Defendants Elena Nikolayevna Koroteeva and Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina at each Client’s last known address.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proofs of service of the signed orders as to both Defendants Elena Nikolayevna Koroteeva and Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Defendants Elena Nikolayevna Koroteeva and Ozopac Inc. dba V-Red West Covina, and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

 

 

 

DATED: February ___, 2024                                     ___________________________

                                                                              Elaine Lu

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court