Luxurious Properties v. Evimeria El Aztecano, Inc., et al.

(1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MICHAEL VIZCARRONDO

(2) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT EVIMERIA EL AZTECANO, INC.

 

MOVING PARTY: Bernadette Bet-Mashal (counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants Michael Vizcarrondo and Evimeria El Aztecano, Inc.)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Luxurious Properties, LLC brought this action against Defendants Michael Vizarrondo and Evimeria El Aztecano, Inc., for breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a written lease of the real property located at 8514-8526 Hoover Street Unit #103, Los Angeles, CA 90044. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the lease by failing to pay rent, among other things. 

Defendants have Cross-Complained for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) trespass, (5) constructive eviction, (6) nuisance, (7) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, and (8) conversion.

Bernadette Bet-Mashal, counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants, now moves to be relieved as counsel. The motions are unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Michael Vizcarrondo is GRANTED.

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for entity Defendant Evimeria El Aztecano, Inc. is GRANTED on the condition that Counsel submit a new Order (MC-053) which indicates that the next hearing will be an OSC re; Striking of Answer on  8:30 a.m.  IF DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS ANSWER MAY BE STRICKEN.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling, as well as the Orders (MC-053) for each defendant, on all interested parties.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

A. 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.)

B. Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 for each Defendant.  Counsel served the moving papers on the clients by mail on August 13, 2024. (See 08/13/24 Proof of Service.)  Counsel confirmed that the address is current within the last 30-days by telephone. (Forms MC-052, ¶ 3(b).)

Counsel attests there has been a “breakdown of the working relationship…making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively.” (See Forms MC-052, ¶ 2.)

There are no oppositions to the motions. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to Defendants if counsel is relieved at this time.

Dated:   September 26, 2024 ___________________________________