Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00324, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00324    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Darlene Agarwala, et al. v. Jean Paul Cyril Issock, et al. 

20TRCV00324

1. Jay Stein’s, Counsel for Plaintiff Jan Agarwala, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel   

TENTATIVE RULING

            Jay Stein’s, Counsel for Plaintiff Jan Agarwala, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is denied without prejudice.

Background

            Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 17, 2020. Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint was filed on November 23, 2020. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Defendants are real estate brokers who rendered services to Plaintiffs for several years concerning the sale of rental properties in San Luis Obispo and the purchase of properties in the Los Angeles area. Defendants also provided rental property management services regarding those properties.

Defendants never fully accounted to Plaintiffs for any of the real estate sales or purchase transactions, nor for the property management services. Defendants improperly caused charges to credit account(s) in Plaintiff Darlene Agarwala's name. Defendant Jean Paul Issock also fraudulently insinuated himself onto the title of one of the properties acquired by Plaintiff Darlene Agarwala causing the title to be vested in his name and that of Plaintiff Darlene Agarwala, individually, rather than as Trustee of her intervivos trust, as joint tenants. Thus, when Plaintiff dies, Defendant Jean Paul Issock inherits the entire property.

Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1) Fraud and Deceit; 2) Conversion; 3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 4) Imposition of a Resulting Trust; 5) Imposition of a Constructive Trust; 6) Accounting; 7) Quiet Title.  

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Counsel states, in his declaration, valid reasons for withdrawal. Counsel states that client, Jan Agarwala, is now deceased and Jan Agarwala’s heirs have not taken the necessary steps to obtain authority to represent Jan Agarwala’s interests. The court finds that the attorney has filed and served upon the client a declaration.  The court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) instead of filing a consent under section 284(1).

However, the court finds that counsel failed to serve the proposed order upon the client and all parties as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d)(1). Thus, the motion must be denied without prejudice.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.