David Allison v. Stephen Cohen Henriques, et al. 

(1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT STEPHEN COHEN HENRIQUES

(2) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT THE PARALLAX SOLUTION LLC

 

MOVING PARTY: Kousha Berokim (counsel for Defendants Stephen Cohen Henriques and The Parallax Solution LLC)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff David Allison

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff David Allison alleges he sought psychological treatment from Defendant Stephen Cohen Henriques and his business, The Parallax Solution LLC. Defendant held himself out as a licensed doctor. In fact, Plaintiff alleges Defendant fabricated his degrees and other credentials. Plaintiff alleges Defendants then charged Plaintiff for counseling services they were not qualified to provide. Plaintiff alleges Defendants continued to manipulate him in an attempt to keep the ruse going. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendants for (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) intention infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) violation of California’s False Advertising Law, (7) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (8) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, (9) negligence, (10) intrusion into private matters, (11) violation of California Constitutional Right to Privacy, and (12) Breach of Contract.

Attorney Berokim, counsel for Defendants, now moves to be relieved as counsel. Plaintiff filed a “limited opposition” to the motion. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Contingent upon some clarification and proof of proper service of this motion, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Stephen Cohen Henriques is GRANTED. 

Contingent upon some clarification and proof of proper service of this motion Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant The Parallax Solution LLC 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 April 4, 2025 at 8: 30 am.8:30 a.m.  IF DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS ANSWER MAY BE STRICKEN.

Withdrawing Counsel is ordered to give notice.

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 as to both the individual and entity Defendant.  Counsel served the moving papers on the clients by mail and email on July 25, 2024.  [FN 1] (See Proof of Service.)  Counsel confirmed that the addresses are current within the last 30-days through the California Secretary of State Website.  (Forms MC-052 ¶ 3(b).)

In support of withdrawal, Counsel attests that “since sometime in September 2024, [counsel has] not been able to reach” the clients despite “multiple attempts by email, phone, and text.” (Form MC-052, ¶ 2.) 

Last, but not least, the declarations filed by withdrawing counsel are somewhat confusing.   In his declaration for Dr. Cohen, he states that he has “lost contact with Dr. Cohen,” but that “due to lack of communications, I am not withdrawing as counsel of record for Dr. Cohen.” (Emphasis added.)   He makes a similar statement as to the corporate client, to wit,  stating that “due to lack of communications, I am not withdrawing as counsel of record for THE PARALLAX SOLUTION LLC.”

SO, WHAT IS IT?  From whom are you withdrawing as attorney of record?

This Court will assume that the word “not” in both statements was a typo. [Perhaps “now” instead of “not”?] Counsel should verify this fact at the hearing.

Plaintiff has filed a “limited opposition” to the motions to be relieved asking that “three sensible conditions be placed” on the withdrawal. First, Plaintiff asserts that counsel should be ordered to release from his client trust account (or at a minimum, retain) up to $2,830.00 that Defendants owe Plaintiff in sanctions. Second, Plaintiff contends the court should set an OSC giving Defendants 30-days to appear in this action. Third, Plaintiff asks that he be “given clarity” from withdrawing counsel on where he can properly serve the Defendants. He also requests that “the Court specifically state that Defendant Henriques may be served (on behalf of himself and Defendant The Parallax Solution)” at the same address where the motion to be relieved was served. 

Here, this court recognizes that it likely does have the sound to discretion to issue such a conditional order. And while these requested conditions are certainly somewhat reasonable, this court respectfully declines to do so. 

First, the amount of sanctions—less than a few thousand dollars—is somewhat de minimis. Additionally, withdrawing counsel owes various duties to the clients regarding the client trust accounts, and this court will not interfere with (or place any conditions on) those existing obligations. Going forward, Plaintiff may attempt to collect on those sanctions with means provided for by law.

Second, the court will set an OSC re: Striking of Answer as to the entity Defendant The Parallax Solution LLC only, requiring that Defendant obtain a new attorney of record by the date imposed herein. No OSC is set for individual Defendant Henriques at this time. 

Third, in any MC-053 Order, the court will make a formal finding as to how each Defendants may be validly served.  It is likely to be the same for each defendant.

Therefore, “good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious undue prejudice to any party if counsel is relieved at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   March 4, 2025 ___________________________________