Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00120, Date: 2024-11-18 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: 23CHCV00120    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/18/24                                                      TRIAL DATE: 3/9/25

Case #23CHCV00120

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 9/13/24.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Koorosh K. Shahrokh

CLIENT: Plaintiff Jose Luis Chavez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Koorosh K. Shahrokh as counsel for Plaintiff Jose Luis Chavez in this action. 

RULING:

On 9/13/24, attorney Koorosh K. Shahrokh filed the instant motion seeking an order relieving attorney Shahrokh as counsel for Plaintiff Jose Luis Chavez (Plaintiff) in this action on the ground that the attorney and client have irreconcilable differences. 

The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 4/24/25.  The proof of service for the motion indicates that on 9/14/24, the motion was served by U.S. Mail on Plaintiff (the client) and “County of Los Angeles.”  (See Proof of Service filed on 9/16/24).  The address where defendant “County of Los Angeles” was served is that of defense counsel.  Id.  The name of defense counsel and/or defense counsel’s firm is not set forth in the original proof of service filed on 9/16/24.  Id.

On 9/25/24, on the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the instant motion was advanced to 9/25/24 and continued to 11/18/24.  (See 9/25/24 Minute Order, p.1).  Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to give notice.  (Id, p.2).  On 10/11/24, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Ruling regarding the 9/25/24 orders.  The proof of service attached to the Notice of Ruling indicates that on 10/11/24 it was served by U.S. Mail and email on defense counsel and Plaintiff.  (See Notice of Ruling filed on 10/11/24). 

If defense counsel concedes receipt of the motion based on the 9/14/24 service by mail and/or has no objection to the granting of the motion, it will be granted upon attorney Shahrokh including Plaintiff’s telephone number in number 6 of the proposed Order. 

If not, the hearing on the motion will be continued to allow proper service of the motion on defense counsel and/or inclusion of Plaintiff’s telephone number in the proposed Order.  In such case, Plaintiff will also have to be served with notice of the continued hearing date.