Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26870, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26870    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Vartan Der-Tatevossian (“Der-Tatevossian”)  

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed  

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff Rusell Bertolino (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nationstar Mtg LLC, Nationstar Mortgages LLC, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Southland Title Co., Yesenia Stewart, Joshua Stewart, PMP Management, Plum Canyon Ranch, Plum Canyon Management, American Automobile Association of Northern California of Nevada & Utah, and Does 1 to 50, alleging a cause of action for General Negligence.

On November 13, 2023, a Substitution of Attorney was filed which substituted in Vartan Der-Tatevossian (“Der-Tatevossian”) as Plaintiff’s new legal representative and identified Michael Isaac as Plaintiff’s former legal representative.

On November 13, 2023, Der-Tatevossian filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff (the “Motion”). 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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 of 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.) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Der-Tatevossian declares that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (MC-052 Form.) Der-Tatevossian has requested Plaintiff sign a substitution of attorney form, but Plaintiff has not signed such form. (Id.) According to Der-Tatevossian, the relationship cannot be made whole as counsel and client no longer trust one another. (Id.)

Der-Tatevossian has stated a valid basis to be relieved as counsel. The Motion, however, cannot be granted.  The MC-051 Form is defective as: (1) the name and address of the client is left blank; and (2) the name of the withdrawing attorney is not indicated on such form.

Moreover, neither the MC-052 nor the MC-053 Form sets forth the OSC re: Dismissal which is set for August 15, 2024. The MC-053 Form (Proposed Order) is also defective on the grounds that it does not set forth the February 1, 2024 Final Status Conference date or the February 15, 2024 Non-Jury Trial date in this action. The Motion is therefore not compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Der-Tatevossian is ordered 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 18th day of December 2023