Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00659, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00659    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Hovik Keleshyan filed this action against Defendants, Dorothy Smith and Oleria DeBose for specific performance and interference with contract.  Plaintiff alleges he entered into a contract with Smith pursuant to which he was to purchase Smith’s property, but Smith has refused to honor the contract.  He alleges DeBose is Smith’s sister; DeBose is running a sober living facility out of the subject house and has taken steps to interfere with the sale of the property. 

2.     Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

On 2/21/23, Steven M. Tamer, attorney for Dorothy Smith and Oleria Debose, filed six documents.  He filed:

·         SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY (pursuant to which Oleira Debose, previously represented by Tamer, is now self-represented)

·         NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL – CIVIL (as to DOROTHY SMITH)

·         DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL – CIVIL (as to DOROTHY SMITH, specifying motion is made on ground that his client is deceased)

·         NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL – CIVIL (as to DOROTHY SMITH)

·         DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL – CIVIL (as to DOROTHY SMITH, specifying motion is made on ground that he and his client have irreconcilable differences and a breakdown in communication)

·         PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL – CIVIL (as to DOROTHY SMITH)

The motion or motions is/are denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

First, while both declarations were filed on the same day, one says Counsel and Smith have irreconcilable differences, and the other says Smith is deceased.  If only one client is at issue, Counsel must file only one motion, and must clearly set forth his reasons for relief. 

Second, the Court wishes to hear details concerning the efforts that were made to confirm Smith’s address.  Counsel declares he mailed the papers, return receipt requested, and he also called the last-known telephone number.  Was the return receipt signed and returned?  Did anyone answer the phone, and/or was a message left?  If Smith is, indeed, deceased, does Counsel know the identity of her successor-in-interest?  This must be clarified if a second motion is filed.  

Third, if Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed address, Counsel must serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court pursuant to CCP §1101(b) and CRC 3.1362(d).

Fourth, and finally, the Court cannot locate proof of service of the moving papers on Smith and all parties who have appeared in the action.  Proof of service is required. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.