Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00137, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00137    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: A

22CMCV00137 Crescenciano Velasco, et al v. Patricia Chavez

Friday, October 28, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL’S TWO MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS, CRESCENCIANO VELASCO AND MARTINEZ DE JESUS VELASCO LUNA

Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that Defendants failed to remedy substandard living conditions at Plaintiffs’ rental dwelling unit owned by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege four related claims arising from the breach of the warranty of habitability.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jacob Partiyeli, Esq., filed these motions on May 25, 2022 and gave notice to both Plaintiffs. Counsel requests an order to be relieved as counsel. Counsel served notice on Plaintiffs of the continued hearing date.

An attorney in an action may be changed at any time with consent of both client and attorney or by order of the court, “upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” Code Civ. Proc., § 284. The court has considered the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel who attests that he has irreconcilable differences with the clients.  

Both Plaintiffs have been served by mail at addresses confirmed within the last 30 days before the motion was filed.  Counsel has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 and has submitted proposed orders. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. The proposed orders shall reflect that counsel is relieved effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon each client. Prop. Ord. ¶ 5.a.