Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV13330, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13330    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Laura Spensley,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

23STCV13330

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Yaniv Ben Ami, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: May 9, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Jeffrey D. Nadel, counsel of record for Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff Laura Spensley

 

T/R:     THE MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL ARE CONTINUED TO MAY 27, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

 

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

 

            The Court considers the moving papers and response.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff Laura Spensley sued Defendants Yaniv Ben Ami, individually and as Trustee of the Yaniv Ben Ami Living Trust; Yaniv Ben Ami Living Trust; Keren Shabat; EG Renovation Inc. for: (1) Breach of Express (Oral) Contract; (2) Fraud in the Inducement; (3) Negligent and/or Reckless Breach of Duty, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Conversion; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Declaratory Relief; (8) Constructive Trust; (9) Punitive Damages; and (10) Construction Defects.

 

On February 2, 2024, the Court entered default against Defendants Yaniv Ben Ami, individually and as Trustee of the Yaniv Ben Ami Living Trust, and Keren Shabat.

 

Defense counsel Jeffrey Nadel now moves for an order relieving him as counsel for all Defendants.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)    

 

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).)    

 

Counsel contends there has been a complete and irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship regarding trust, communication, and agreement on strategy. Counsel also contends that elements of the written Retainer Agreement have not been honored due to a series of actions and non-actions between the attorney and client over the past couple of months.

 

Counsel declares the moving papers have been served on Defendants via mail at their last known address, which Counsel has been unable to confirm after calling Defendants’ last known telephone number(s). Counsel does not know of anyone in Thailand to assist with the search and Ms. Shabat and Mr. Ami refuse to share their address in Thailand. Counsel’s last contact by telephone was on March 27, 2025, which went to voicemail; Counsel’s last email correspondence was March 28, 2025.

 

Plaintiff requests that granting the motions be conditioned on Counsel’s providing Defendants Yaniv Ben Ami’s and Keren Shabat’s valid, current home address to Plaintiff’s counsel; authorization to effect personal service on these defendants via email or by text message; and monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,500.00 against Defendant Yaniv Ben Ami for refusing to cooperate with his counsel to properly respond to discovery.

 

Counsel has shown good cause to be relieved. The Court will not condition relief as requested by Plaintiff. However, Counsel failed to submit proposed orders including all the hearings scheduled in this action as required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e). Counsel shall submit the proposed orders, also including all contact information for Defendants that Counsel has, no later than May 19, 2024.

 

The motions are CONTINUED.


 





Website by Triangulus