Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV01019, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 21PSCV01019 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: O
Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant, Fervino, Inc.’s
and Cross-Defendants Ricardo
Fernandez’s and Anarbys Abrahante’s (i.e., Law Offices of
Robert J. Spitz) 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 Clients at the Clients’ last known address. An Order to
Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporation is set for December
1, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
Background
Plaintiff Archtic, LLC (“Archtic”) alleges as follows:
On or about January 1, 2020, Archtic entered into a partially written and partially oral agreement with Defendant Fervino, Inc. dba Slater’s 50-50 (“Slater’s”), in which Archtic agreed to provide general construction management to the real property located at 201 N. Citrus Ave., Covina, CA 91723 (“the Project”) in exchange for payment. The contract was subsequently amended to increase the scope and price, which amendments were partially written and partially oral. Defendant Raul Trevino (“Trevino”) is the owner of the real property upon which the Project was constructed. Slater’s has failed to make payment. On or about November 24, 2021, Archtic recorded a mechanic’s lien.
On December 6, 2021, Archtic filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Slater’s, Trevino and Does 1-50 for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Open Book Account
3. Account Stated
4.Reasonable Value of Labor and Materials Furnished
5. Violations of Prompt Payment Statutes
6. Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien
On May 18, 2022, Trevino filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Slater’s, Ricardo Fernandez (“Fernandez”), Anarbys Abrahante (“Abrahante”) and Roes 1-5 for:
1. Partial Indemnity and/or Contribution
2. Indemnity
The Final Status Conference is set for January 16, 2024. Trial is set for January 30, 2024.
The Law Offices of Robert J. Spitz (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Slater’s, Fernandez and Abrahante (“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.
Attorney Robert J. Spitz (“Spitz”) states in his declaration that there has been a breach of the attorney-client retainer agreement.
Spitz states that he has served the Clients by mail at the Clients’ last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via conversation.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.
Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Clients at the Clients’ last known address.
The court will set an Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporation for December 1, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.