Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC714990, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714990    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

briana wolf ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

popchest, inc. , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC714990

 

 

Hearing Date:

February 28, 2024

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[Tentative] Order RE:

 

(1)   motion to be relieved as counsel for popchest, inc.

(2)   motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant valerian bennett

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Al Mohajerian, Esq.

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Popchest, Inc.

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Valerian Bennett

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Al Mohajerian (“Counsel”) separately moves to be relieved as counsel of record for         (1) Popchest, Inc. (“Popchest”)[1], and (2) defendant Valerian Bennett (“Defendant”).  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses Counsel’s motions together.

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. 2) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’”¿ (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)¿ The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”¿ (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (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)).¿

Counsel filed two proofs of service of the documents filed in support of the pending motions on the clients.  First, on January 26, 2024, Counsel filed a proof of service stating that Defendant was served with the notice of motion, declaration, proposed order, and “Notice of Ruling” on that date.  (Jan. 26, 2024 Proof of Service, p. 1:6-11.)  Second, on February 2, 2024, Counsel filed a similar proof of service stating that Popchest was served with the notice of motion, declaration, proposed order, and “Notice of Ruling” on January 26, 2024.  (Feb. 2, 2024 Proof of Service, p. 2:7-12.)  However, Counsel did not file with the court the notice of ruling that was served on Popchest and Defendant, such that the court cannot verify that Counsel properly gave notice to the clients of the hearing on this motion.  The court further notes that the “Declaration[s] in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” filed by Counsel on January 26, 2024 list the hearing dates on the motions to be the original dates of January 16, 2024 (as to the motion to be relieved as counsel for Popchest) and January 19, 2024 (as to the motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant).  (MC-052 filed Jan. 26, 2024 as to Popchest, p. 1; MC-052 filed Jan. 26, 2024 as to Defendant, p. 1.)

Thus, the court finds that Counsel has not submitted evidence showing Popchest and Defendant have received proper notice of the new hearing date on Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel, as required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)  The court therefore denies, without prejudice to Al Mohajerian’s filing new motions that comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, Al Mohajerian’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for Popchest, Inc., and (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Valerian Bennett.

            The court orders Al Mohajerian to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  February 28, 2024

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court



[1] The court notes that judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff Briana Wolf and against Popchest on February 28, 2019.  (Feb. 28, 2019 Judgment by Court, JUD-100.)  The court further notes that the Cross-Complaint filed by Arvind Mishra against Popchest was dismissed on October 5, 2021.