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
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
BC714990 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
February
28, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[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:
_____________________________
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.