Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00947, Date: 2023-11-07 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: 21CHCV00947    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/7/23                                                             TRIAL DATE: 1/29/24

Case #21CHCV00947

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 9/20/23.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Samuel J. St. Romain

CLIENT: Plaintiff LA Dorm, LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Samuel J. St. Romain as counsel for Plaintiff LA Dorm, LLC in this action. 

RULING: The motion is granted.

On 9/20/23, attorney Samuel J.  St. Romain filed and served the instant motion seeking an order relieving him as counsel for Plaintiff LA Dorm LLC (Plaintiff) in this action.  The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 2/26/24.  On 9/28/23, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion.  There is no proof of service attached to the opposition; nor has one been separately filed.    

On 10/4/23, the Court denied attorney Romain’s ex parte application for an order shortening time on the hearing for the instant motion.  (See 10/4/23 Minute Order).  However, in the alternative, the Court advanced the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel to 10/4/23 and continued it to 11/7/23.  Id. 

The motion is made on the ground that there has been a breakdown of the working relationship between the attorney and the client.  The, apparently, unserved opposition which consists of a declaration from Vladislav Shuliko, the owner of Plaintiff, claims that the attorney is not abiding by the fee agreement between the parties.  Additionally, Shuliko contends that allowing withdrawal at this time, with trial scheduled for 1/29/24, will leave Plaintiff/Shuliko “in a terrible situation that is so complicated that [he/it] will not have much possibility of securing competent new counsel.”  (See Shuliko Decl. ¶3).     

The Shuliko declaration actually supports attorney Romain’s claim that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, at least with regard to the fee agreement.  Additionally, Shuliko gives no indication that any effort has been made to secure new counsel. 

Based on the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, the fact that Plaintiff has been aware of the need to begin looking for new counsel since mid to late September when the instant motion was served and trial is still approximately three months away, the motion is granted.