Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00831, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20TRCV00831 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, October 27, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 8
PROCEEDINGS
David Shiokari, Jr., et al. v. Nobuko Shiokari, et al.
20TRCV00831
Rod Pacheco’s, Counsel for Victoria Shiokari, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Rod Pacheco’s, Counsel for David Shiokari, Jr., Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Rod Pacheco’s, Counsel for Nobuko Shiokari, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
TENTATIVE RULING
Rod Pacheco’s, Counsel for Victoria Shiokari, David Shiokari, Jr., and Nobuko Shiokari, Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on November 12, 2020. Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint was filed on August 17, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiff David Shiokari, Jr. is the grandson of Defendant Nobaru Shiokari. Plaintiff Victoria Shiokari is David Shiokari, Jr.’s mother. (The Court notes that this Plaintiff is referred to as both Victoria Shiokari and Vicky Shiokari.) Defendants Kenneth and Stan Shiokari are Defendant Nobaru Shiokari’s sons, the brothers of David Shiokari, Sr., David Shiokari, Jr.’s father, and, thus, apparently David Shiokari, Jr.’s uncles. Defendants promised to provide health insurance for the family including all grandchildren until they reached the age of 26. Defendants failed to keep their promise. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Oral Contract; 2. IIED; 3. IIED; 4. Fraud; 5. False Promise. Defendants’ operative First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on August 9, 2022.
Motions to be Relieved as Counsel
Counsel states, in his declarations, valid reasons for withdrawal. Counsel states that there has been a breakdown in communication. The court finds that the attorney has filed and served upon the clients 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). The court finds that counsel served the proposed order upon the clients and all parties as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d)(1).
Therefore, the motions to be relieved as counsel are granted.
The attorney is relieved as counsel of record for the clients effective upon the filing of the proofs of service of the signed orders upon the clients.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.