Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV20575, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20575    Hearing Date: October 21, 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

            Carlos A. Gomez  of  The Dominguez Firm, LLP (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jose Alberto Garcia Canjura (Plaintiff).  

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.)  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

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 hearing 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).) 

Notwithstanding, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service establishing service of the summons and complaint on Defendant within 60 days of the filing of the complaint.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b).)  Therefore, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re why monetary sanctions should not be imposed due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint for JANUARY 12, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.   (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f).)   Plaintiff must file any responsive papers at least five calendar days before the Order to Show Cause.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(i).)  The Court may impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff or Counsel for Plaintiff, at the time of the Order to Show Cause if Counsel for Plaintiff or Plaintiff fail to appear, or fail to give good cause for the delay in serving the summons and complaint.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, 177.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.30.)