Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC637442, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC637442    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 1, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: David R. Shoop and Thomas S. Alch, Counsel of Record for Defendant Security Systems, Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:   THE MOTION IS GRANTED. COUNSEL TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. COUNSEL WILL BE RELIEVED UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER.

COUNSEL 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. No opposition has been received.

The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client.  (CCP § 284.)  The attorney may withdraw from representation where the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client’s interest—that is, counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; see California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700.)

David R. Shoop and Thomas S. Alch seek to withdraw from representation of Defendant SSI. Counsel state that the attorney-client relationship has broken down due to nonpayment of fees. Trial has been completed; no prejudice will result from counsel’s withdrawal. Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362.

There is good cause for counsel’s withdrawal. The motion is GRANTED. 

Hearing Date: February 1, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(4) Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery[1]

Moving Party: Plaintiff Vanowen Real Estate Partners

Responding Party: None

T/R:   PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $820.32 AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT.

PLAINTIFFS 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. No opposition has been received.

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”  (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).) When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to post-judgment SIs and RPDs from Defendants Lali Fizli and Maritza Aguilar. Plaintiff served the discovery on February 24, 2023. Responses were due on March 29, 2023. As of the date of these motions, Plaintiff has not received responses. Defendants have not opposed this motion to show that responses have been served. The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff requests $820.32 in sanctions for each of the four motions. As the motions are largely duplicative, the Court will allow $820.32 in total sanctions against each Defendant.