Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00267, Date: 2023-11-29 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 24, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/24/24                                                          TRIAL DATE: 4/22/24

Case #19CHCV00267

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 1/16/24.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Garabed Kamarian

CLIENT: Plaintiff Madlen Hagopian

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.     

This is the fifth motion filed by attorney Garabed Kamarian seeking an order relieving him as counsel for Plaintiff Madlen Hagopian (Plaintiff) in this action.  The first three motions were taken off calendar by the Court due to issues with service of the motion and the last hearing was continued to 1/24/24 also due to service issues.  (See 12/6/22 Minute Order; 1/31/23 Minute Order; 3/15/23 Minute Order; 11/29/23 Minute Order). 

As noted above, on 11/29/23, the Court continued the hearing on attorney Kamarian’s last motion to be relieved as counsel to 1/24/24 because there was no evidence that the motion had been properly served.  (See 11/29/23 Minute Order).  On 1/16/24, attorney Kamarian filed this fifth motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff due to a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship.  On 1/15/24, the motion was served by mail on counsel for the other parties.  (See  Proof of Service filed 1/16/24).  On 1/18/24, the motion was personally served on Plaintiff.  (See Proof of Service filed 1/19/24). 

The service of the motion did not provide the required 16 court days plus 5 calendar days required when a motion is served by mail or the 16 court days notice when a motion is personally served.  See CCP 1005(b).  There are no responses to the motion to cure the defect in notice. 

Also, as noted in the Court’s 11/29/23 ruling, the proposed Order lodged with the instant motion also does not set forth the client’s address and/or telephone number as required in number 6.