Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV41794, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41794    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION 

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff DeeAnna Linsmaier’s counsel, Arthur M. Petrousian of Morgan & Morgan Los Angeles LLP, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”).   Ms. Linsmaier filed an opposition.  On February 27, 2023, Defendant Wail Bushara’s “limited scope counsel” filed an opposition to the motion to be relieved. 

On April 5, 2023, the Court heard argument, including an in camera hearing.  The Court denied the motion because the Court believed Mr. Petrousian failed to demonstrate an irreconcilable conflict and Ms. Linsmaier would suffer prejudice given the proximity of the trial date.

On April 13, 2023, Mr. Petrousian filed an ex parte application to release the transcript of the in camera hearing so that it might be filed along with Mr. Petrousian’s writ petition.  The Court granted the ex parte application and ordered the release of the transcript subject to a protective order.  The Court, on its own motion, notified the parties that it was reconsidering its ruling and calendared May 4, 2023, to hear further argument on the issues. 

On April 25, 2023, the Court heard Mr. Bushara’s motion to continue the trial date.  At the hearing, Mr. Bushara withdrew the motion.  Nonetheless, the Court continued the trial date to May 31, 2023, without objection from any party, to provide time for Mr. Petrousian to pursue his writ petition before the Court of Appeal.    

On April 27, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued a Temporary Stay Order, and notified the parties that the “court is considering issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance.”    

On May 1, 2023, Mr. Petrousian filed a motion for reconsideration.  Ms. Linsmaier and Mr. Bushara each filed oppositions.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS 

Reconsideration

The court has discretion to reconsider on its own motion a prior ruling for any reason.  (LeFrancois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108 (“If a court believes one of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct that error no matter how it came to acquire that belief.”).)

III.       DISCUSSION

The Court, on its own motion, set the matter for hearing to reconsider its prior ruling denying Mr. Petrousian’s motion to be relieved and to afford the parties further opportunity to address the issues.  Since then, Mr. Petrousian and his client have continued to demonstrate conflicts, the Court of Appeal has issued a stay of the proceeding, and Mr. Petrousian submitted his own motion for reconsideration.[1]  In addition to Mr. Petrousian’s motion, the Court has read and considered the oppositions filed by Mr. Bushara and Ms. Linsmaier.[2]

The twin concerns of conflict and prejudice are central to the Court’s considerations. 

The Court must also assess prejudice.  At this juncture, prejudice can be minimized by either proceeding to trial on the current date or continuing the case to accommodate the parties’ concerns.  Ms. Linsmaier may choose to proceed to trial on the current date, and while she argues she will be prejudiced without counsel to assist her, Ms. Linsmaier has demonstrated an ability to pursue her case independently.  Indeed, Ms. Linsmaier’s filings, both public and under seal, demonstrate a familiarity and proficiency in litigation.  On the other hand, should Ms. Linsmaier seek additional time to locate new counsel, the Court will endeavor to accommodate the request.  Mr. Bushara opposes the motion because he is concerned a trial continuance will negatively impact his personal and financial situation.  Should the case move forward on the current trial date, Mr. Bushara will not suffer any prejudice.  If the trial is continued, the Court will endeavor to find a convenient date for the parties.  Rarely, when conflicts arise, are trial dates perfect.  This case is no exception. 

In the final analysis, while there may be a certain amount of prejudice to the parties, the irreconcilable conflict demonstrated by Mr. Petrousian predominates.  The Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the case contributes to and confirms such an assessment.        

Given the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Mr. Petrousian’s motion to be relieved.[5]

When the Court of Appeal lifts the stay, this Court will hear from the parties regarding the appropriate trial date.  The Court will consider Ms. Linsmaier’s requests to either proceed to trial and represent herself or seek a continuance to obtain new counsel.  The Court will also hear from Mr. Bushara regarding the trial date. 

IV.       CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court reconsiders its April 5, 2023 order and GRANTS Mr. Petrousian’s Motion to Be Relieved.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

                                                                               Dated this 4th day of May 2023