Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV25336, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25336 Hearing Date: October 11, 2024 Dept: 20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile
Department 20
Hearing Date: Friday, October 11, 2024
Case Name: Ace Diversion Inc. v. 1530 Date Street, LLC
Case No.: 23STCV25336
Motion: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Moving Party: Mark V. Asdourian, Esq.
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: OK
Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.
Mark V. Asdourian, Esq. to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear in person.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff Ace Diversion Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant 1530 Date Street, LLC (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive for (1) Specific Performance and (2) Breach of Contract. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written Commercial Lease for real property located at 1530 Date Street, Montebello, CA 90640 (“Property”), wherein Plaintiff was granted an option to purchase the Property by delivering written notice to Defendant between June 1, 2023 through July 31, 2023, and a cashier’s check payable in the amount of $25,000.00. (Compl., ¶¶5-6.) Despite two payments of $25,000.00 made to Defendant, Plaintiff alleges Defendant refuses to open escrow and commence the purchase and sale of the Property, and made verbal representations regarding intent to sell the Property to a third party. (Id. at ¶¶10-15.)
On August 12, 2024, Mark V. Asdourian, Esq. of Newport Harbor Law Group, P.C. filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant. The motion is unopposed.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Law
The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)
An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).)
Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)
Application to Facts
Counsel Asdourian has filed the MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 forms pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Furthermore, Counsel Asdourian served Defendant by mail at its last known address, which Counsel Asdourian states was confirmed within the past 30 days as current through the Statement of Information filed with the Secretary of State on May 7, 2024 by the manager, Aron Petrosian on behalf of Defendant.
Counsel Asdourian declares that Defendant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the written retainer agreement, including but not limited to failing to make timely payment of statements for professional services rendered for a period of over five (5) months. Moreover, Counsel Asdourian declares he has been contacted by counsel who was considering taking over the case and requested pleadings and discovery, which were provided. However, Counsel Asdourian states the substitution of attorney form forwarded to Defendant on August 1, 2024 has not been executed and returned. The Court notes that no substitution of attorney has been filed in this matter.
Nonetheless, Counsel Asdourian filed proof of service indicating that the requisite forms were served on Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff. Likewise, the proposed order on form MC-053 includes all the hearings scheduled in this matter as follows: (1) Final Status Conference set for 8/6/26; and (2) Jury Trial set for 8/10/26. Thus, Defendant has sufficient time to Finally, the fact that the corporate Defendant will be without representation is not a basis for denial of the motion to be relieved as counsel. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504:
There are two concepts, not one, which are here involved. The first is the principle supported by [Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724] that a corporation may not proceed in propria persona. The second is that an attorney, given proper grounds, may be permitted by the court to withdraw as attorney of record. These two concepts are not inconsistent in the case of a corporate client. An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation. [¶] The effect of withdrawal is to leave the corporation without representation and without the ability to practice self-representation. For the uncooperative corporate client who has not been willing to bring in new counsel, granting of the withdrawal motion will put extreme pressure on it to obtain new counsel of record for should it fail to do so it risks forfeiture of its rights through non-representation.
Therefore, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.
Mark V. Asdourian, Esq. to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear in person.