On Roth v. Roy Pelleg, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY: Jeffrey Gersh (counsel for Plaintiff On Roth)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff engaged in the cannabis industry and qualified for a Phase 2 cannabis license.  Seeking to expand his business, Roth accepted a $400,000 investment from Defendant Roy Pelleg (“Pelleg”) for a 15% stake in the company.  It is further alleged Defendant Pelleg induced Plaintiff to enter into another investment offer, whereby Defendant would invest another $150,000 plus help with Plaintiff’s debts for another 50% of the business.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay the investment monies owed and engaged in conduct to effectively force Plaintiff out of his business.  Defendant then allegedly conspired with his wife, Ady Batsheva Shifman-Pelleg (“Shifman-Pelleg”), to transfer Plaintiff’s Phase 2 cannabis license to their company, Anat Group, Inc.  (“AGI.”)

Attorney Jeffrey Gersh now moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff On Roth. The motion is unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Legal Standard

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284, subdivision¿(2), California Rules of Court 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 CCP section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP 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, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-053)).¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿

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.)

Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Counsel served the moving papers on the client and opposing counsel electronically on November 22, 2022. (See Proof of Service.)  Counsel attests there has been “a breakdown of the attorney client relationship” and there exists “substantial, irreconcilable differences” between the parties. (See MC-053.)

There is no opposition to this motion. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by movant. Although the April 10, 2023, trial is approaching, Plaintiff has adequate time to retain new counsel and will suffer little prejudice in this matter.

Accordingly, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   December 20, 2022 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.