Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00267, Date: 2023-01-31 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: January 31, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/31/23

Case #19CHCV00267

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 12/8/22.

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. 

Attorney Kamarian has still failed to establish that the motion was properly served on the client.  (See 12/6/22 Minute Order). 

The declaration in support of the motion indicates that the client was personally served with the motion.  (See Declaration, No.3.a.(1)).  The proof of service regarding such personal service indicates that the motion documents were delivered to “Vartuhl, Office Employee, on behalf of Madlen Hagopian.”  (See Proof of Service filed 12/27/22, p.1, No.5.a.).  To properly personally serve a party delivery must have been made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening.”  (See Proof of Service filed 12/27/22, p.1, No.6.a).  Since an “office employee” was served on behalf of the client, it does not appear that the service took place at her residence.  Additionally, there is no indication that the employee is 18 years old or older and/or the time of day the service took place.    

The declaration of attorney Kamarian filed on 1/23/23 indicates that on 12/21/22 the motion was also served on the client at her last known email address which he indicates is: mady0619@aol.com.  (See 1/23/23 Kamarian Decl. ¶2).  Exhibit A to the declaration is the proof of such electronic service.  The proof of service indicates that the motion documents were served on the client at mady0619@aol.com; however, the attached copy of the email indicates that it was sent to madyh0619@aol.com.  As such, it is not clear what the client’s last known email address is mady0619@aol.com or madyh0619@aol.com and/or whether the motion documents were served on that address.  Attorney Kamarian has also not provided any indication as to why the Court should accept electronic service on the client as sufficient under the circumstances.  (See Declaration in Support of Motion, p.2 No.3.b. and c.).   

No response to the motion has been filed to cure the foregoing notice defects.

Additionally, the proposed order does not include a telephone number for the client.  Further, if the attorney is relying on an email address for service, in any subsequent motion/proposed order that email address should also be included (in addition to the client’s physical address/last known physical address and telephone number).