Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV27064, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27064    Hearing Date: October 3, 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

            Attorney Salvatore DeSimone (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Anna Soghomonyan, Lusine Khachikyan, David Soghomonyan, and Mher Soghomonyan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  

ANALYSIS

On April 19, 2022, Counsel filed his initial motion to be relieved. On June 1, 2022, the Court denied that motion finding Counsel’s proof of service in connection with the motion failed to indicate the date and manner of service of the notice of proposed order on Plaintiffs and all other parties who have appeared in the action. The Court also noted Counsel moved to be relieved as counsel for four clients but filed only one motion.

Here, Counsel correctly filed separate motions for each Plaintiff he seeks to be relieved from representing. Counsel indicates the notice of proposed order was served by US certified mail on June 8, 2022 on Plaintiffs and all other parties who have appeared in the action.

Counsel filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and lodged with the Court copies of the proposed order on forms MC-053 as required.  (See Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motions is extreme disagreements with co-counsel which makes continued co-representation detrimental to Plaintiffs.  This qualifies as good cause for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)  Moreover, Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by Counsel’s withdrawal because they will continue to be represented by Krikor Mesrobian of the Beverly Hills Attorney Group.  Accordingly, the Court grants Counsel’s motions.

Counsel must serve the signed orders (form MC-053), which shall include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court, on Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs until Counsel files the requisite proof(s) of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)