Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV03944, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 22STCV03944    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Counsel Ronald Richards (“Richards”) and counsel Geoffrey S. Long (“Long”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            On February 9, 2024, plaintiff Yogi Securities Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative third amended complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants Jona Rechnitz, Robert Rechnitz, JSR Capital, LLC, Alan “AVI” Golombeck, Agol Holdings, LLC, Ayal Frist, Stateland Brown, LLC, (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1-100 asserting causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract – Count 1; (2) Breach of Contract – Count 2; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Breach of Guaranty; (5) Conversion; (6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Fraud and Concealment; and (8) Civil Theft (Cal. Penal Code, § 496).  

             On December 18, 2024, both Richards and Long filed motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff (the “Motions”). The Motions are unopposed.

DISCUSSION

            Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”¿ (CCP § 284; California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 3.1362.)¿ The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably.¿ (Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)¿

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms:¿ 

¿ 

1. Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client (MC-051);¿ 

2. Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” the reasons that the motion was brought (MC-052);¿and 

3. Proposed Order (MC-053).¿ 

¿ 

The forms must be timely filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case.¿ (CRC rule 3.1362.)¿ If these documents are served on the client by mail, there must be a declaration stating either that the address where client was served is “the current residence or business address of the client” or “the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.”¿ (CRC rule 3.1362 subd. (d)(1).)¿ 

The court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation.  (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.)   

            Both Richards and Long filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053). As reason for the Motions, counsel states: “California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(4), allows a state bar member to request permission to withdraw if the client fails, "or by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively." (Both MC-052, ¶ 2.) The forms were served on the client and Defendants via mail and/or electronic transmission on December 18, 2024. (All Forms, Proof of Service.) Counsel confirmed via email that the client’s address is current. (Both MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1).) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as trial is currently set for July 14, 2025. Thus, the Court finds that the Motions set forth an adequate basis for withdrawal. 

Ronald Richards’s and Geoffrey Long’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Yogi Securities Holdings, LLC are GRANTED. Because Plaintiff is a corporation, it cannot represent itself in this case. The Court therefore sets an Order to Show Cause re Representation for February 13, 2025 at 8:30 am to discuss Plaintiff’s retention of counsel.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 21st day of January 2025