Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV10164, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10164    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    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

            Daniel Azizi of Downtown LA Law Group (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Elena Ghafouri (“Plaintiff”). 

ANALYSIS

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motion is an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that stands in the way of effective representation.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.) 

However, Counsel has not filed a proof of service in connection with the motion to indicate that Counsel served the notice of the motion and motion, declaration in support of the motion, and proposed order on Plaintiff and all other parties 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 proof of service filed in connection with the motion indicates that only Defendants Universal City Nissan, Inc. and Sage MJL Properties, Inc. were served in accordance with Rule 3.1362(d).  And although the form MC-052 states that the Plaintiff was served, it does not clarify what was served on the Plaintiff as required by Rule 3.1362(d).  Moreover, the Court notes that Counsel did not check Section 3(a)(1) on the form MC-052. 

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective, and orders Counsel to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.