Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19STCV46265, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV46265 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: K
1. Counsel for Defendant Daniel Leon’s (i.e., Resnick & Louis, P.C.) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.
2. Counsel for Defendant Steve Melnick’s (i.e., Resnick & Louis, P.C.) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
3. Counsel for Defendant S&J Pomona, LLC dba Krazy J’s Grill’s (i.e., Resnick & Louis, P.C.) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.
Background
On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Krazy J’s Grill and Does 1-100 for:
1.
Negligence
2.
Premises
Liability
3.
Negligent
Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention of Security Guards
4.
Battery
On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein “S&J Pomona, LLC” was named in lieu of Doe 1. On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Steve Melnick (“Melnick”) was named in lieu of Doe 2 and Pomona Fox Theater Master Tenant, LLC (“Pomona Fox Master”) was named in lieu of Doe 3.
On October 29, 2021, Pomona Fox Theater filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Krazy J’s Grill and Roes 1-50 for:
1.
Equitable
Indemnity
2.
Contribution
3.
Breach
of Contract
4.
Express
Indemnity
5.
Negligence
6.
Declaratory
Relief
7.
Declaratory
Relief Re: Duty to Defend
On February 28, 2022, this case was transferred from Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.
On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed four
“Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Pomona Fox Theater, LLC (“Pomona Fox
Theater”) was named in lieu of Doe 4, Pomona Fox Theater Manager, LLC (“Pomona
Fox Manager”) was named in lieu of Doe 5, Pomona Fox Concessions, LLC (“Pomona
Fox Concessions”) was named in lieu of Doe 6 and Daniel Leon (“Leon”) was named
in lieu of Doe 7.
On February 14, 2023, Pomona Fox Concessions, Pomona Fox Manager and Pomona Fox Theater filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Krazy J’s Grill and Roes 1-50 for:
1.
Equitable
Indemnity
2.
Contribution
3.
Breach
of Contract
4.
Express
Indemnity
5.
Negligence
6.
Declaratory
Relief
7.
Declaratory
Relief Re: Duty to Defend
The Trial Setting Conference is set for November 16, 2023.
Discussion
Resnick & Louis, P.C. (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Leon, Melnick and Krazy J’s Grill (“Clients”).
The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a 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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 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.
At the outset, the motion is summarily denied without prejudice as to Melnick. Attorney Robert A. Hufnagel (“Hufnagel”) represents that the reasons for the motion are set forth on Attachment 2; however, no Attachment 2 has been provided with respect to the motion re: Melnick.
Hufnagel represents in relevant part, as to Leon and Krazy J’s Grill, that the Firm was originally retained by Krazy J’s Grill’s insurance carrier to provide a defense, and that the Firm made an appearance for Krazy J’s Grill and later for Melnick and Leon as Krazy J’s Grill’s agents or representatives. The insurance carrier has notified the Clients that the coverage available under the policy has been exhausted and the defense is withdrawn. Hunagel has asked the Clients to make alternative arrangements by the end of August and/or substitute new counsel but they have not done so. The Clients disagree with the coverage decision made by the insurance carrier. There is a conflict between the insurance carrier that retained the Firm and the Clients.
Hufnagel states that he has served the Clients by mail at the Clients’ last known address and has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address(es) is/are current, by calling and emailing.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met as to Leon and Krazy J’s Grill.
Accordingly, those motions are granted, effective upon the filing of proofs of service showing service of the signed orders upon Leon and Krazy J’s Grill respectively at their last known address(es).