Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV33743, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33743    Hearing Date: August 15, 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

August 15, 2022

CASE NUMBER

19STCV33743

MOTIONS

Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Attorneys Pat Harris and Tamar G. Arminak

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTIONS

           

            Attorneys Tamar G. Arminak of  Arminak Law APC and Pat Harris of the Law Offices of Pat Harris (collectively, “Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Kristina Mkrthcyan.

 

ANALYSIS

 

  1. MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED

 

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed orders on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motions is a a breakdown in attorney-client communication and trust, causing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)  Accordingly, the Court grants the motions.

 

Counsel must serve the signed order (form MC-053), which shall include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court (including the proceedings as set forth below), on Plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action, within 10 days of the date of this Order, and file a proof of service of such.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Plaintiff until Counsel files the requisite proof of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) 

 

  1. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

 

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2; but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

 

Here, Plaintiff contends that due to Counsel seeking to be relieved she will need time to either retain new counsel or to prepare for trial.  Plaintiff further contends that if ample time is not provided Plaintiff will suffer undue prejudice.  In light of Counsel being relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows: