Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV46885, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV46885 Hearing Date: January 24, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2019, Plaintiffs Karo Isadzhanyan and Larissa Isadzhanyan filed this action against Defendants Yusen Logistics (American) Inc., Esmeralda Agredano-Salazar, and Does 1-50 for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium.
On August 18, 2020, Defendant Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc., erroneously sued and served as Yusen Logistics (American) Inc., filed an answer.
On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendants National Retail Transportation as Doe 1 and National Retail Systems, Inc. as Doe 2.
On May 5, 2021, the Court dismissed Yusen Logistics (American) Inc. without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On June 18, 2021, Defendant National Retail Transportation, Inc. filed an answer.
On July 15, 2021, the Court dismissed Defendant Esmeralda Agredano-Salazar without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On August 5, 2022, Defendant National Retail Systems, Inc. filed an answer.
On August 23, 2022, the Court granted Defendant National Retail Transportation’s motion for summary judgment. On October 10, 2022, the Court entered judgment for Defendant National Retail Transportation, Inc.
Also on October 10, 2022, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant National Retail Systems, Inc. based on the parties’ stipulation. The Court has not entered a judgment in favor of Defendant National Retail Systems, Inc.
On January 17, 2023, the Court entered another judgment in favor of Defendant National Retail Transportation, Inc. and awarded it $7,372.25 in costs.
COUNSEL’S REQUEST
Plaintiffs’ counsel Artin Sookasian asks to be relieved as counsel.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides:
“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination as follows:
1. “Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes;
2. “Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides:
“(a) Notice
“A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).
“(b) Memorandum
“Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.
“(c) Declaration
“The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state 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).
“(d) Service
“The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail.
“(1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:
“(A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or
“(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.
“(2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.
“As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.
“(e) Order
“The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. 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.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ counsel has not provided proofs of service showing service of the moving papers (the notice of motion and motion on Form MC-051, the declaration on Form MC-052, and the order on Form MC-053) on each Plaintiff and on the other parties that have appeared in the case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) While the Court has dismissed Defendant Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc. and entered judgment in favor of Defendant National Retail Transportation, Inc., the case remains pending against Defendant National Retail Systems, Inc. because the Court has not entered judgment in its favor.
Therefore, the Court denies the motions to be relieved as counsel without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ counsel refiling the motions with proper proofs of service.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Artin Sookasian’s motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Karo Isadzhanyan and Larissa Isadzhanyan.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.