Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC709417, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC709417    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 74

BC709417      OCEAN BLUE INVESTMENTS VS SAEED FARKHONDEHPOUR

Joseph S. Dzida of Callanan, Rogers & Dzida, Counsel for entity Defendants Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

TENTATIVE RULING:  Joseph S. Dzida of Callanan, Rogers & Dzida’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants KIMSA Holdings, LLC, One Tocker, LLC, K.B. Partnership, 241 E. 5TH ST. Partnership LP (erroneously sued as 241 E. 5th St. LP), 1135 S. L.A. Street, LLC (erroneously sued as 1135 South LA Street Fashion District, LLC), ONE 1001 Towne Ave, LLC (erroneously sued as One 1001 Towne, LLC), S. Los Angeles Street Associates, LLC), 416 South Wall St. Partnership, LP; 300 S. Los Angeles St. Partnership, LP (erroneously sued as 300 S. Los Angeles St. Partnership LP), 350 South Los Angeles Street Partnership, LP, 310 E. Boyd St. Partnership, LP, 326 East Boyd St. Partnership LP, and SAFA Holdings LLC is GRANTED.

Background

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs Ocean Blue Investment, LLC, Morad Behrooz Neman, Sion Neman, and Hersel Neman filed a complaint against 17 defendants. The complaint asserted sixteen causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of contract, (4) accounting, (5) specific performance, (6) specific performance, (7) conversion, (8) violation of CA Penal Code 496(c), (9) negligence, (10) fraud and deceit, (11) negligent misrepresentation, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (13) equitable/implied indemnity, (14) contribution, (15) declaratory relief, and (16) injunctive relief.

The Court ordered the action to arbitration. On February 17, 2022, the Court entered judgment in accordance wit the Final Partial Arbitration Award issued by Hon. Charles W. McCoy, Jr. (Ret.).

On June 16, 2022, the Court denied Defendants’ petition to vacate the award of the arbitrator or for compensatory adjudgment.

On July 20, 2022, after issuing a tentative ruling to grant the motion, the Court took counsel’s initial motion off-calendar due to counsel’s failure to appear.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

On July 25, 2022, Joseph S. Dzida of Callanan, Rogers & Dzida filed a renewed motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants KIMSA Holdings, LLC, One Tocker, LLC, K.B. Partnership, 241 E. 5TH ST. Partnership LP (erroneously sued as 241 E. 5th St. LP), 1135 S. L.A. Street, LLC (erroneously sued as 1135 South LA Street Fashion District, LLC), ONE 1001 Towne Ave, LLC (erroneously sued as One 1001 Towne, LLC), S. Los Angeles Street Associates, LLC), 416 South Wall St. Partnership, LP; 300 S. Los Angeles St. Partnership, LP (erroneously sued as 300 S. Los Angeles St. Partnership LP), 350 South Los Angeles Street Partnership, LP, 310 E. Boyd St. Partnership, LP, 326 East Boyd St. Partnership LP, and SAFA Holdings LLC.

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. 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. 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. 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 or mail. 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. 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 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. 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 seeks to be relieved on the grounds that legal services are no longer required in this action as the represented entities have agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s judgment and several of the defendant entities have been transferred to the principal of the Plaintiffs, rendering Dzida in conflict with those entities. (Dzida Decl. ¶ 2, Attachment 2.) Dzida also indicates the entities’ interests are fully represented by their principals in this action. The Court finds an adequate basis for counsel’s withdrawal.