Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV09352, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09352    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 61

EFRAIN HERNANDEZ CRUZ vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("LACMTA"), et al.

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 of 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 attorney Gabriel K. Eissakharian, of The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, APC, counsel for Plaintiff Efrain Hernandez Cruz. Eissakharian submits a declaration stating that Cruz has become uncooperative and non-responsive to his communications, resulting in an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship. The proposed order includes upcoming dates of hearing, which at this time include the case management conference and an OSC re: sanctions on Plaintiff for failing to appear at a prior case management conference.

Although a proof of service upon other parties to this action accompanies this motion, the motion does not include a proof of service upon the client. Eissakharian’s declaration states that this is because he has been unable to confirm that any address is current or to locate more current addresses for his client, despite attempts to call the client’s last known telephone number, and making personal visits to the client’s last known addresses and speaking to the neighbors there about his whereabouts.

The motion shall be CONTINUED to permit service of the motion upon the last known addresses of Plaintiff Efrain Hernandez Cruz. Eissakharian states that he has been unable to confirm that these addresses are current, but he does not state that he has confirmed that Cruz no longer resides at either address. As these are evidently the best points of service available to counsel, service of the moving papers ought to be attempted at these addresses before the motion is granted, CRC Rule 3.1362, subd. (d) provides for service upon a last known address which the attorney has been unable to confirm; it does not dispense with the requirement of service entirely.

The motion is therefore CONTINUED to permit service of the moving papers upon Plaintiff Cruz’s last known address.

Plaintiff is to give notice to the parties and his client of this Ruling within five (5) days.