Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV34660, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34660    Hearing Date: January 13, 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

MOTIONS

            Anthony Castillo III of DRE Law, A.P.C. (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Riham Ammari and Iman Ammari (collectively, Plaintiffs).   

ANALYSIS

            Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court copies of the proposed order on forms MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The basis for the motions is a breakdown in attorney-client relationship irreparably beyond the point of repair.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)  

            The Court notes that while Counsel has advanced proofs of service reflecting service of forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 on Plaintiff Riham Ammari, by mail, Counsel’s attendant proofs of service for Plaintiff Iman Ammari’s forms reflect electronic service only.  Where notice is served on the client by electronic service, “it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).) Section 3a(2) of Counsel’s declaration indicates Counsel served Plaintiff by mail, not electronic transmission. 

            Accordingly, the Court grants Counsel’s motion as to Plaintiff Riham Ammari.  However, the Court denies Counsel’s motion as to Plaintiff Imman Ammari as procedurally defective.

            The Court further orders Counsel to resubmit form MC-053 as to Plaintiff Riham Ammari to reflect changes in hearing and trial dates as noted in the submitted Notices of Errata. 

            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, on Plaintiff Riham Ammari 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 Riham Ammari until Counsel files the requisite proof of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)