Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV07412, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her auto accident case. On March 12, 2024, Defendant Alison Agosti propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One[1], on Plaintiff. Defendant granted Plaintiff several extensions, and on May 6, 2024, Plaintiff served timely responses consisting solely of objections. The deadline for Defendant to file her motion to compel further (MTCF) was originally set for June 20, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the parties agreed to extend Defendant’s MTCF deadline to July 22, 2024. (Exhibit G.) The last communication between the parties, as presented in the moving papers, is an email exchange in which Plaintiff’s counsel requested an indefinite extension to provide discovery responses due to difficulties locating Plaintiff. Defendant denied this request, stating, "I’ll have to file my motion, but I will not request sanctions." (Exhibit H.) On August 28, 2024, Defendant filed and served the present motions.

Defendant has demonstrated an ongoing cooperative approach to this case. Unfortunately, Defendant waived her right to file the present motions. "Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).) Defendant and Plaintiff specifically agreed to a date of July 22, 2024, to serve and file her motion. She did not did not serve and file it until August 28, 2024. The motions are therefore denied because they are late. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410. (although 45-day limitation is not 'jurisdictional' in the fundamental sense, it is 'jurisdictional' in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them).)

Attorney Astghikc Ghevondyan represents Plaintiff. Ghevondyan moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and communication. No opposition has been filed. ¿

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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)

¿ A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

Ghevondyan has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Ghevondyan seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and communication. The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. (See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw).)

Counsel has expended reasonable efforts in obtaining Plaintiff's mailing address by using TLO search and hiring an investigator to locate Plaintiff.

The next hearing is an FSC set for 2/18/25, which should be sufficient time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel. Alternatively, if Plaintiff or new counsel needs additional time to prepare for trial, sufficient time exists for Plaintiff to take action to seek a continuance of the trial. Thus, the present motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED effective upon service on Plaintiff.

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.

[1] Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to her Requests for Production has been advanced from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2024, in order to simultaneously address all three motions to compel further and Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.