Rozalin Javaheri, et al. v. Hamid Shoohed, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS ROZALIN JAVAHERI AND ROSA TORKIAN

 

MOVING PARTY: Ryan M. Herrera of Tenant Law Group (counsel for Plaintiffs Rozalin Javeheri and Rosa Torkian)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs Rozalin Javaheri and Rosa Torkian bring this action against the owners or managers of a rental property in Beverly Hills they resided at until August 23, 2023. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to remedy or repair numerous habitability defects at the property, including microbial growth and electrical issues. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants intimidated and harassed Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs complained of these defects. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligence, (4) violation of California Civil Code section 1940.2, (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and (6) elder financial abuse.

Tenant Law Group now moves to be relieved as counsel for both Plaintiffs.  No opposition was filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Rozalin Javaheri is GRANTED.

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Rosa Torkian is GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this Ruling, as well as the Order Granting Motion (MC-53) to 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 undue 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 Plaintiff on May 8, 2024.  Counsel served the moving papers by email at Plaintiff Rozalin Javaheri’s last known email address. (See MC-052, ¶ 3; 05/20/2024 Proofs of Service.) Plaintiff Rosa Torkian, who is Plaintiff’s Rozalin Javaheri’s mother, was also served via email to her daughter. (Id.) Counsel attests that he has “communicated via email” with Plaintiffs in past. (See MC-052, ¶ 3.)

Counsel attests that “withdrawal is required or permitted by California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a) or (b),” and that Plaintiffs have not consented to withdrawal. (MC-052 ¶¶ 2.)

There is no opposition to the motion, and there is no evidence Plaintiffs will be unduly prejudiced if Counsel is relieved at this time. 

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   June 10, 2024 ___________________________________