Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: BC649025, Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC649025 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: K
Counsel for Defendant Alkiviades David’s
(i.e., Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan &
Shapiro LLP) Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the
filing of a
proof of service showing service of the signed order via
email upon the Client at the
Client’s email
address and via mail and email upon Themis Sofos of Sofos & Partners.
Background
Case No. BC649025
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Taylor (“Taylor”) and Chasity Jones (“Jones”) (together,
“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Defendant Alkiviades David (“David”) was, at
all relevant times, the President, CEO and managing agent of Defendants Hologram
USA, Inc. (“Hologram”), Hologram USA Entertainment, Inc. (“Hologram
Entertainment”), FilmOn Media Holdings, Inc. (“FilmOn”), FilmOn.TV, Inc.
(“FilmOn TV”), FilmOn.TV Networks, Inc. (“FilmOn Networks”), Alki David
Productions, Inc. (“Alki David Productions”) and Anakando Media Group USA
(“Anakando”). In January 2015, Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants as account
executives on the company’s sales team. Throughout the duration of their
employment, Plaintiffs worked in a hostile, misogynistic workplace rife with
sexual innuendo and degrading behavior to women. David also sexually harassed,
assaulted and imprisoned Taylor and sexually harassed and assaulted Jones. In
May 2015, Defendants directed Taylor to falsify health insurance paperwork to
indicate a later hire date. On June 1, 2015, Taylor was terminated, which was
the same day she complained about sexual harassment and insurance fraud. In
October 2015, Defendants ordered Jones to sign a declaration against Taylor. On
November 15, 2016, Jones was terminated in retaliation for rebuffing David’s
sexual assault.
On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of
action against David, Hologram, Hologram Entertainment, FilmOn, FilmOn TV,
FilmOn Networks, Alki David Productions, Anakando (together, “Defendants”) and
Does 1-25 for:
1.
Employment
Discrimination—Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA
2.
Discrimination
Based upon Disability in Violation of FEHA
3.
Failure
to Accommodate Disability in Violation of FEHA
4.
Wrongful
Termination in Violation of FEHA
5.
Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy
6.
Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA
7.
Retaliation
in Violation of CA Gov. Code § 12653
8.
Sexual
Battery in Violation of CA Civ. Code § 1708.5
9.
Common
Law Battery
10.
Sexual
Assault
11.
Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress
On September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a FAC, adding a single cause of
action for Gender Violence in Violation of Civ. Code § 52.4, which was asserted
by Jones only.
On July 11, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ “Motion for Separate
Trials.”
On January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,”
wherein FOTV Media Networks Inc. (“FOTV”) was named in lieu of Doe 1 and
FilmOn.TV UK Limited (“FilmOn UK”) was named in lieu of Doe 2.
On June 27, 2018, David filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against
Plaintiffs and Roes 1-25 for:
1.
Sexual
Battery
2.
Battery
On August 28, 2019, the court granted Alki David Productions’, Anakando’s
and FOTV’s motion for nonsuit as to Taylor’s complaint. On September 3, 2019,
the court declared a mistrial as to all of Taylor’s claims, with judgment to be
entered on the FACC as follows: David to take nothing by virtue of the
cross-complaint.
On February 21, 2020, Taylor filed a “Supplemental Complaint for Damages”
against David, Hologram, Hologram Entertainment, FilmOn, FilmOn Networks, Alki
David Productions, Anakando and FilmOn TV.
On August 26, 2020, the court sustained FilmOn’s, FilmOn Network’s, Alki
David Production’s and Anakando’s demurrer to Taylor’s Supplemental Complaint
for Damages without leave to amend; on September 24, 2020, an “Order of
Dismissal” was entered as to same.
On March 18, 2022, remittitur was filed, affirming the court’s September
26, 2019 amended judgment as to Jones.
On November 9, 2022, the court granted Jones’ Motion to Amend Judgment to
Add Harmonia Malibu, LLC (“HML”), as a Judgment Debtor. On December 5, 2022, HML
filed a “Notice of Appeal.”
On December 28, 2022, an “Amended Order for Sale of Dwelling Commonly
Known as 23768 Malibu Road, Malibu, California 90265” was entered. On March 21,
2023, an “Order Appointing Receiver Over 23768 Malibu Road, Malibu, California
90265” was entered. On April 19, 2023, an “Order Appointing Received in Aid of
Enforcement of a Money Judgment” was entered. On April 21, 2023, a “Stipulation
for Order Authorizing Receiver to Retain Counsel; Order Thereon” was entered.
On August 3, 2023, an “Order Granting Ex Parte Application of Creditor
for Order to Levy on Deposit Account Held in Name of Third-Party Judgment
Creditor” was entered.
On August 29, 2023, the court related Case Nos. BC649025 and 23SMUD02028
and designed Case No. BC649025 as the lead case.
On November 14, 2023, a “Stipulation Between the Receiver and Senior
Secured Creditor Axos Bank Regarding (1) $150,000 Funding to be Made by Axos
Bank, (2) Relief from the Stay in the Receivership Order, and (3) Related
Matters; Order Thereon” was entered.
On December 12, 2023, the special verdict was entered as to Taylor. On
December 13, 2023, the special verdict—phase II was entered as to Taylor.
Case No. 23SMUD02028
This is an unlawful detainer action involving the real
property located at 23768 Malibu Road, Malibu, California 90265 (“subject
property”).
On August 21, 2023, Stephen J. Donell, in his capacity as
State Court-Appointed Receiver for 23768 Malibu Road, Malibu, CA 90265
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against David,
Nissrine Qrib and DOES 1-20 for:
1.
Unlawful Detainer
On August 29, 2023, the court related Case Nos. BC649025 and 23SMUD02028
and designed Case No. BC649025 as the lead case.
On November 14, 2023, a “Stipulation Between Receiver Stephen J. Donell
and Defendant Nissrine Qrib Regarding the Malibu Property and Related Matters;
Order Thereon” was entered.
On November 30, 2023, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, without
prejudice, pursuant to an oral request made by Plaintiff’s counsel.
Discussion
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro
LLP (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of
record for
David (“Client”).
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
Rules 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 Fred D. Heather (“Heather”) represents that “there is a
genuine basis for withdrawal under California Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rule 1.16” and that the Client “and his new counsel have not consented to a
request to substitute counsel.” Heather requests that an in camera
hearing be conducted should the court desires further information.
Heather states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s 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. Heather
advises that the Client “was served both by email and care-of his
counsel in Greece” and that the Client’s “Greek counsel has confirmed that [the
Client] can be served by email in connection with the service of all case
related documents.”
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 a proof
of service showing
service of the signed order via
email upon the Client at the Client’s email address and via
mail and email upon Themis Sofos
of Sofos & Partners.