Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC661702, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC661702    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 1

BC661702      LAZBEN INVESTMENT CO VS LAWRENCE M DEUTSCH

Arthur Avazian’s Unopposed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Lawrence Deutsch and Jacob Deutsch

TENTATIVE RULINGS:  Arthur Avazian’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Jacob Deutsch is GRANTED.  Mr. Avazian to give notice.

Background

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Lazben Investment Co. filed this action against Lawrence M. Deutsch.

On August 17, 2018, Intervenor Andrew M. Deutsch filed a complaint in intervention against Lawrence M. Deutsch alleging eight causes of action: (1) Expulsion from Partnership, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Faith Dealing, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Care, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty, (6) Accounting, (7) Unjust Enrichment, and (8) Declaratory Relief. 

On April 24, 2019, Lazben filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting thirteen causes of action against Lawrence M. Deutsch, Deborah Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch, and Aleksander L. Deutsch, individually as well as Esther Deutsch, Benjamin A. Deutsch, and Andrew M. Deutsch, as Trustees of The E.S.D. - Lawrence M. Deutsch Trust,  Benjamin A. Deutsch and Andrew M. Deutsch, as Trustees of The N.D-L.M. Deutsch Trust, Lawrence M. Deutsch and Andrew M. Deutsch as Trustees of the E.S.D.-Benjamin A. Deutsch Trust and The N.D-B.A. Deutsch Trust.

On July 19, 2019, Zachary Deutsch filed a cross-complaint asserting fourteen causes of action against Lawrence M. Deutsch, Deborah Deutsch, Jacob Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, Esther Deutsch, and Jane Roe.

On October 2, 2019 and November 5, 2019, Lawrence Deutsch filed the Second Amended Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Lazben Investment Co., Naftali Deutsch, Benjamin A. Deutsch, Zachary I. Deutsch, Bookkeepers Unlimited Inc., Casa Lago, LLC, and All Persons Unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the cross-complaint adverse to Lawrence Deutsch’s Title, or any cloud on Lawrence Deutsch’s title thereto. The SAC asserted sixteen causes of action.

On November 2, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment upon Default.

Motions to be Relieved

Standard

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) Further, under such discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, the motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

“A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-051).” (Cal. R. Ct., rule  3.1362(a).) “Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1362(b).) “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1362(c).)

“The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail. (1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (1) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (2) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. (2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address. As used in this rule, ‘current’ means 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 service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1362(d).)

“The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(e).)

Discussion

Counsel indicates there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as the clients have “continually and seriously failed to cooperate and communicate with counsel, and ignored counsel’s many efforts to reconcile.” Accordingly, counsel stated a proper basis for withdrawal. (Cal. R. Prof. Cond., rules 1.16(b)(4); 1.16(b)(5).) The motion was properly served via mail and electronic mail and counsel utilized all required forms. The Court finds the requirements for withdrawal are satisfied.