Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV24619, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV24619, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24619 Hearing Date: January 16, 2025 Dept: 61

AZIN EFTEKHARI vs NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Azin Eftekhari’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Judicial Assistant to calendar a case management conference and trial setting conference in 90 days.

Nadia Yashar’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Azin Eftekhari is GRANTED, effective upon moving counsel filing with the court proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client, as set forth in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1362(e).

Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court's ruling, case management conference, and trial setting conference, to all parties, and Plaintiff's client. Plaintiff to file Proof of Service of Notice of Ruling within 5 days of this Order.

ANALYSIS

I. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

“In passing on the motion for a continuance, which rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the trial court, the trial judge may inquire into the merits of the defense, pass on any questions presented as to any possible prejudice to either of the parties which would result from granting or denying the motion, and determine whether there is good cause therefor.” (Schwartz v. Magyar House, Inc. (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 182, 188–89.)

In evaluating a request for continuance, the court should consider:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(CRC Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff Azin Eftekhari (Plaintiff) seeks a continuance of trial based on the declaration of his counsel, Nadia Yashar. Yashar states that Plaintiff has ceased communicating with her and that the trial must be continued to allow for a hearing on her motion to be relieved as counsel, and to permit Plaintiff additional time to obtain counsel before trial. (Yashar Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.)

At the time the motion for continuance and motion to be relieved were filed, trial was set for October 8, 2024. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 3.) Yashar’s motion to be relieved was set for October 23, 2024. (Yashar Decl. ¶ 4.) On September 11, 2024, this court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial to April 22, 2025. However, hearing on the present motions was delayed to January 2025 based on two notices of continuance filed by the court on October 17, 2024.

Trial is now three months away. A prior stay of trial was entered on the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, but the present motions were delayed from their original October dates due to no fault of the parties. The motions have been served on Plaintiff and Defendant Nissan North America, and neither has filed oppositions indicating any prejudice to be suffered by a further continuance. Granting the motion would permit Plaintiff additional time to find counsel before an upcoming trial, and thus promote the interests of a fair hearing in this matter.

The motion to continue trial is therefore GRANTED.

II. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client or the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if know. Additionally, “[t]he 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 present motion pertains to Nadia Yashar, counsel for Plaintiff Azin Eftekhari. Yashar presents a declaration stating that Plaintiff has ceased to communicate with her regarding either settlement or trial, and there has thus been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The motion includes a proof of service and a proposed order form listing upcoming dates of hearing, which are now out of date as trial has been continued once since the motion was filed, and another motion to continue trial is being heard concurrently. However, the continuance of trial ordered concurrently shall minimize any prejudice upon the client resulting from his counsel’s withdrawal. The order form served upon the client shall reflect updated dates of trial.

Nadia Yashar’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Azin Eftekhari is GRANTED, effective upon moving counsel filing with the court proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client, as set forth in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1362(e).