Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV36024, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36024    Hearing Date: March 8, 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

              Plaintiffs Alfredo Chavez and Eydi Chavez (collectively, Plaintiffs) move to set aside the dismissal entered on July 13, 2022 dismissing the complaint without prejudice regarding Defendants Juan Carlos Menjivar and John Doe.  The motion is unopposed. 

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ current counsel of record is Michael Burgis & Associates and Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi LLP (collectively, Current Counsel). 

            However, the motion was filed by Fahed Sayegh of The Foxx Firm Inc. (Foxx Firm).  Yet Plaintiffs have failed to file a substitution of attorney with the Court substituting Current Counsel with the Foxx Firm.  Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.36, “[a] party may substitute attorneys by serving and filing in the reviewing court a substitution signed by the party represented and the new attorney.  In all appeals and in original proceedings related to a superior court proceeding, the party must also serve the superior court.” 

            Moreover, the Court notes that Current Counsel has not been relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) 

            Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to file a substitution of attorney with the Court, Current Counsel remains counsel of record for Plaintiffs, and thus the Foxx Firm cannot represent Plaintiffs regarding the subject motion.  Thus, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective.

            The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.