Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00631, Date: 2022-09-14 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: 20CHCV00631    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/14/22                                              TRIAL DATE: 10/17/22

Case #20CHCV00631

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 8/30/22.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Helene J. Farber

CLIENT: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving attorney Helene J. Farber as counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc.

RULING: The motion is granted. 

On 8/30/22, counsel Helene J. Farber filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc. in this action.  The original hearing date for the motion was 1/4/23.  On 8/31/22, pursuant to attorney Farber’s ex parte application, the Court advanced and continued the hearing on the motion to 9/14/22.  Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc. have opposed the motion on the grounds that it is based on misrepresentations and allowing the withdrawal of counsel approximately one month before the 10/17/22 trial date will cause them prejudice as they will have insufficient time to retain new counsel. 

The Court finds that it would be in the best interests of the clients to be represented by different counsel in the face of the motion to be relieved.  Additionally, the Court notes that both the motion and opposition indicate that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are amenable to a trial continuance and a response from Plaintiff refuting such claim has not been filed.

Therefore, at the hearing, the Court will discuss the length of the continuance necessary for  Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc. to retain new counsel and for the parties to prepare for trial. 

Cochran Inc. and Roshmore Development Inc. are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  The declarations and exhibits attached to the opposition are not bookmarked.  Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in  matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.