Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV27092, Date: 2025-02-27 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.

On January 2, 2025, Gabriel H. Avina, counsel for Plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

On February 13, 2025, Defendants Shahram Pascal Abrar, Yellow Hope Holdings, LLC, and Partners of Today, Inc. filed an objection.

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.)

Gabriel Avina seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the following reason: “Due to the confidentiality of Plaintiffs’ identities and the upcoming hearings in this matter, Attorney filed this motion to prevent any prejudice to Plaintiffs’ claims while Plaintiffs pursue alternative counsel. Current counsel can no longer continue representation as initially agreed in the signed retainer agreement because of recent adverse legal matters to Attorney. Attorney has fully informed Plaintiffs of the need to withdrawal. A substitution of counsel may be filed by Plaintiffs prior to February 27, 2025.” (Form MC-052.)

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Motion based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Civil Code section 1708.85. Specifically, subdivision (f) of section 1708.85 provides: “A plaintiff who proceeds using a pseudonym and excluding or redacting identifying characteristics as provided in this section shall file with the court and serve upon the defendant a confidential information form for this purpose that includes the plaintiff's name and other identifying characteristics excluded or redacted. The court shall keep the plaintiff's name and excluded or redacted characteristics confidential.”

Here, Plaintiffs filed this action using pseudonyms. Counsel’s Motion redacts Plaintiffs’ names, current or last known addresses, and contact information. However, as Defendants correctly point out, Plaintiffs did not serve a confidential information form to Defendants. At least there is no proof of service to indicate otherwise.

Accordingly, the court finds the Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule. 3.1362. Without Plaintiffs’ identities or current contact information, Defendants will not be able to serve pleadings, motions, and orders, among other things on the self represented individuals.

The court will continue the hearing for the motion to March 27, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. to allow Plaintiffs to file and serve the confidential information form (Judicial Council Form MC-125) as required by Civil Code section 1708.85(f)(1).

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court