Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case 19STCV30227 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV30227, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30227 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IRENE DELORES LLANES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SHARON GILLMAN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 19STCV30227

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 17, 2023

Plaintiff Irene Llanes’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Harry Nalbandyan, Esq. (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, contending relief is necessary because Counsel and Plaintiff have come to a point of irreconcilable differences regarding the handling of the action.[1] Counsel declares the moving papers were served on Plaintiff via mail at the Plaintiff’s last known address after confirming the address as current through correspondence Plaintiff sent with the current address. Counsel does not, however, check the box indicating that the address was confirmed within the last 30 days. Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Court wishes to hear from Counsel concerning how correspondence from Plaintiff was used in confirming Plaintiff’s address as current. Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1362, counsel must show that “the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” If the Court is satisfied with confirmation of Plaintiff’s address within 30 days of service of the Motion to be Relieved on Plaintiff, the motion will be granted. The ruling will be effective upon filing proof of service of the final order. The Court notes the next scheduled matter is a Final Status Conference set for September 20, 2023, and trial is not scheduled until October 4, 2023. Therefore, there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to seek other counsel or otherwise prepare prior to trial.

If Counsel is unable to show that they served Plaintiff at a confirmed address, then the requirement that Counsel serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court pursuant to CCP §1011(b) and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d) would preclude the granting of the motion.

Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 17^th day of March 2023

Hon. Michelle C. Kim

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes that on January 13, 2023, Plaintiff seemingly filed two substitution of attorney forms providing that Plaintiff wished to dismiss moving Counsel from representing Plaintiff in this action. However, the forms are not signed by Counsel. Though they provide the same address that Counsel used for service on Plaintiff, they were not filed within 30 days of service of the motion to be relieved.