Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00267, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19CHCV00267    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/6/22

Case #19CHCV00267

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 8/31/22.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Garabed Kamarian

CLIENT: Plaintiff Madlen Hagopian

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.

The instant motion seeks an order relieving attorney Garabed Kamarian as counsel for Plaintiff Madlen Hagopian. 

The declaration filed in support of the motion indicates that the motion was served on the client by mail at the client’s last known address.  (Declaration filed 8/31/22, no.3.a.(2)).  The declaration does not indicate that the client’s address has been confirmed.  (Declaration, no.3.b.(1)).  Although number 3.b.(2), which indicates that the attorney has been unable to confirm that the client’s last known address is current or to locate a more current address, is not marked, number 3.b.(2)(a), which indicates that the motion was mailed to the client’s last known address, return receipt requested is marked.  (Declaration, number 3.b.).  The original proof of service for the motion does not indicate service of the motion on the client and no return receipt was filed with the motion.  (See Proof of Service filed 8/31/22).

On 12/1/22, counsel filed a declaration regarding service and a proof of service for same on Plaintiff by electronic service.  On 12/2/22, counsel filed another declaration/proof of service by electronic service for the declaration on opposing counsel and Plaintiff.

The proofs of service filed on 12/1/22 and 12/2/22 are untimely as proofs of service must be filed at least five court days before the hearing.  CRC 3.1300(c).

Even if the proofs of service had been timely filed, they fail to establish timely/proper service of the motion on Plaintiff.  First, the proof of service by certified mail is defective.  The certified mail receipt indicates that the documents were mailed on 11/8/22 which does not provide the 16 court days plus five calendar days’ notice required when a motion is served by mail.  CCP 1005(b).  Such service is short by one day because of the three court holidays in November.  (See Kamarian Decl. filed 12/1/22, Ex.B).  Additionally, the proof of service is defective because it was signed on 11/7/22 before the service took place.  Id.  Further, the return receipt attached is not signed by any recipient.  Id. 

The declaration of Ken Khalatian and purported proof of personal service by Khalatian also do not establish proper service.  The declaration states that the individual Khalatian spoke to denied knowing Plaintiff and the proof of “personal” service indicates that the documents were left with someone other than Plaintiff.  (See Kamarian Decl. filed 12/1/22, Ex.C, D).  Even if Khalatian had personally served Plaintiff on 11/29/22, such service would not be timely for the 12/6/22 hearing date. 

The purported service by electronic service on Plaintiff is also insufficient as it is untimely and because the declaration initially filed in support of the motion indicates service by mail, not electronic service.  Also, as noted above, the initial declaration is not properly completed with regard to service.  (See Declaration filed 8/31/22, No.3).   

No response/opposition to the motion has been filed by Plaintiff/client to cure the defects in notice. 

Based on the foregoing, the matter is placed off calendar.