Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00762, Date: 2025-01-23 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: 22CHCV00762    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/23/25

Case #22CHCV00762

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 10/11/24.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Zubin Farinpour

CLIENT: Plaintiff Spectrum Holdings and Development, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Zubin Farinpour as counsel for Plaintiff Spectrum Holdings and Development, LLC in this action. 

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.

On 10/11/24, attorney Zubin Farinpour filed and served the instant motion seeking an order relieving Zubin Farinpour as counsel for Plaintiff Spectrum Holdings and Development, LLC (Plaintiff) in this action.  The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 4/2/25.  At the 10/24/24, Status Conference Re Default Judgment, the Court advanced the hearing on this motion to 10/24/24 and continued it to 1/23/25.  (See 10/24/24 Minute Order).  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to give notice of the foregoing.  Id.

There is no proof of service of the motion on Plaintiff.  The proofs of service attached to the moving papers only indicate service on the defaulted defendants.  Even if the proof of service included Plaintiff, the declaration filed in support of the motion fails to provide sufficient information regarding confirmation of Plaintiff’s address.  The declaration indicates that the client’s address was confirmed by text message with the client.  However, the client/Plaintiff is a limited liability company; therefore, the attorney must indicate who at the limited liability company confirmed Plaintiff’s address and their authority to do so. 

Further, there is no evidence in eCourt that attorney Farinpour provided Plaintiff with notice that the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel was changed from 4/2/25 to 1/23/25 as ordered by the Court, assuming that Plaintiff was ever served with the motion papers for the original hearing date. 

There is no response to the motion by Plaintiff to cure the defects in notice.