Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 18STCV09041, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV09041    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Attorney Gary Loftis (Loftis) moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Gurgen Khodaqulyan dba Wolf Trucking (Defendant Khodaqulyan). 

            Foremost, the Court notes that Loftis is counsel of record for Defendants Khodaqulyan and Defendant Olatoundji Karimou (collectively, Defendants).  (See Answer to Complaint filed July 29, 2029.)  But the Court notes that Loftis filed the motion to be relieved as to Defendant Khodaqulyan only.  The motion is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

Loftis has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052, and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC_053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motion is that Loftis is not able to contact Defendant Khodaqulyan.  (See MC-052.)

In addition, Loftis advances a declaration dated July 17, 2020 in which he avers to the following: Loftis was retained as Defendants’ counsel based on Loftis’ employment with Global Century Insurance Brokers (GCIB) serving as in-house counsel for Global Hawk Insurance Company, Defendants’ commercial auto liability insurer.  (Declaration of Gary Loftis, ¶¶  2-3.)  Loftis’ employment with GCIB was terminated on June 11, 2020, as a result of a June 8, 2020 Order of Liquidation and stay of proceedings involving Global Hawk Insurance Company insureds.  (Declaration of Gary Loftis, ¶¶ 4-5.)  Loftis advised Defendants in prior correspondence that he could no longer serve as their defense counsel in this matter and requested they arrange for new counsel or substitute themselves in pro per.  (Declaration of Gary Loftis, ¶ 10.)  However, Defendants did not respond.  (Declaration of Gary Loftis, ¶ 10.)  Loftis further explains that after his termination he no longer had access to Defendants’ files.  (Declaration of Gary Loftis, ¶ 13.)  The Court finds that Loftis has valid reasons to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Khodaqulyan.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.) 

However, Loftis has failed to file proofs of service in connection with the motion to indicate that Loftis served the notice of the motion, declaration in support of the motion, and proposed order on Defendant Khodaqulyan and all other parties, including Plaintiff and Defendant Karimou, who have appeared in the action, as required.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d) [“[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case”].) 

The Court further notes that the proposed order (MC-053) is incomplete and contains errors.  Form MC-053 should include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court including but not limited to the trial and final status conference.

            Instead of denying the motion due to the procedural defects, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to July 5, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. in Department 32 which will be more than ample time for Loftis to serve the moving papers on Defendants at their last known addresses and Plaintiff at his address of record.  Further, Loftis shall provide notice of the continued hearing and shall file a proof of service regarding the same.