Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV24970, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24970    Hearing Date: April 14, 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

            Payam Tavakoli of Tavakoli & Associates (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Claudia Cruz (“Plaintiff”). The motion is unopposed.

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 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motion is a breakdown in attorney-client communication.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)  However, the Court finds Counsel’s notice to Plaintiff of the instant motion to be defective. 

First, Counsel failed complete section 3(b) of form MC-052, and thus has failed to indicate whether Counsel has contacted Plaintiff personally to confirm her current mailing address or has implemented other means to determine Plaintiff’s current mailing address. 

Second, the Court notes that Counsel submitted a declaration attached to form MC-051 which could have cured the defect in form MC-052.  (See Form MC-051, Declaration of Payam Tavakoli Regarding Plaintiff’s Mailing Address.)  Yet, the Court finds Counsel’s declaration to be unreliable for the following reasons: (1) the declaration indicates that Counsel received an email regarding a new mailing address on “September 23, 2023”, a date that has not yet occurred; and (2) the declaration refers to the new mailing address of a “Mr. Cruz”, whereas the Court assumes Plaintiff Claudia Cruz is not referred to as “Mr.”  (See Form MC-051, Declaration of Payam Tavakoli Regarding Plaintiff’s Mailing Address.) 

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective.  Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.