Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV43861, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV43861    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 25, 2024                   TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Fred Stepen, et al. v. Vanounou Zion, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV43861

MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               A. Scott Brown, Law Offices of A. Scott Brown

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On December 13, 2023, A. Scott Brown, counsel for Defendants, Zion Vanounou, Moshe Vanounou, and 2808-2850 South Sante Fe, LLC, filed these Motions to be Relieved as Counsel.  

II.        LEGAL STANDARD 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  

III.       DISCUSSION 

A. Scott Brown seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants for the following reasons: “There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship to the extent that I cannot adequately and zealously continue to represent the client's interest. There has also been a breakdown in confidence and trust between the client and my office. Fees remain outstanding and have not been paid and prospects of future payment are insufficient. My efforts to remedy these issues have been unsuccessful. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the conflict in the relationship cannot be further disclosed without violating confidences and privileged communications.”  (Forms MC-052.)   

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)  

Upon review, the court finds the Motions comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. 

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            Accordingly, the unopposed motions are GRANTED and effective upon the filing of the proofs of service of this signed order upon Defendants. 

            The court sets a status conference re: defense counsel for March 1, 2024 at 9:00 am.  

            Counsel to give notice.  

Dated:   January 25, 2024