Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00956, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00956    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

Defense counsel, Arno H. Keshishian (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Edward Sirakanian (“Defendant”). 

Counsel filed this instant motion to be relieved as counsel on July 5, 2023.  Counsel has filed the requisite forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) and MC-053 (Proposed Order) pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362, but has not filed form MC-052 (Declaration).  The Court notes that Counsel has filed a separate declaration of Counsel, but it is not on the form MC-052. 

According to the declaration of Counsel, Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel because Counsel had initially agreed to working with Defendant’s “consultant” on this matter, but it quickly became apparent that the consultant and Counsel had differing views and opinions on how to defend the matter and settlement.  (Counsel Decl., ¶¶6-7.)  Counsel states that Defendant was made aware of the conflict and informed that varying strategies could not coexist, and that Defendant chose to remain with and take counsel from the consultant rather than Counsel’s office.  (Id., ¶8.)  He states that he attempted to have the consultant sign and return a substitution of attorney so that the consultant would become attorney of record, but the consultant has refused to do so.  (Id., ¶9.)  He states that as of June 23, 2023, Defendant has ceased communication with Counsel on this matter, yet the consultant and Plaintiff’s counsel exchange emails to negotiate the terms of a settlement without Counsel’s input.  (Id., ¶11.)  For these reasons, Counsel seeks to withdraw from representing Defendant in this action. 

Counsel states that he served the motion on Defendant by mail and email.  The attorneys for the other parties in this action were also served with the motion by mail and email on July 5, 2023.   As an MC-052 form was not filed with the motion papers, the Court cannot ascertain whether Defendant was served at his last known address and whether the address was confirmed within the last 30 days.  (See MC-052 Form at §3.)   Prior to the hearing, Counsel should file an MC-052 form attesting to this information or inform the Court at the hearing that service was made at Defendant’s last known address. 

As an MC-052 form was not filed, Counsel has not informed the Court of the future hearing dates on this motion.  However, based on the MC-053 Proposed Order form and the Court’s docket, it appears that the only future hearing date is a Trial Setting Conference set for September 6, 2023.   Thus, it appears that there is still sufficient time for Defendant to retain substitute counsel prior to trial.  It also appears based on Counsel’s declaration that the consultant firm has been representing Defendant in negotiations.  If Defendant intends to use the consultant for negotiations and as attorney for defense of this action, Defendant should promptly file a substitution of attorney naming substitute counsel.

The Court is inclined to grant the motion, but will order Counsel to file an MC-052 form with the requisite information prior to the hearing or make inquiries at the hearing whether service was properly made at Defendant’s last known mailing address that was confirmed within the last 30 days.  The Court will then make its determination on the motion at the hearing.

Notice to be provided by Counsel.