Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV37630, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37630 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 78
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GLENDALE FRENCH BOUTIQUE CAFE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants. Case No.: 21STCV37630
Hearing Date: May 3, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
ATTORNEY DRO MENASSIAN’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ANASTASIA PUKHALSKAYA.
Attorney Dro Menassian’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Anastasia Pukhalskaya is CONTINUED until May 8, 2023.
Menassian is to complete forms MC-053 as to Pukhalskaya and GFBC and to file the properly completed forms at least five days in advance of the continued hearing date. On each form, Counsel must: (1) check box 5a and (2) fill at all other parts of the forms.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within one day after the date of this order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of lease. The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff Glendale I Mall Associates, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) owns the Glendale Galleria (the “Galleria”). (Compl. ¶ 7.) On September 26, 2017, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with defendant Glendale French Boutique Café, LLC (“GFBC”). (Compl. ¶ 9.) GFBC breached the terms of the lease by refusing to pay rent and other amounts due under the Lease. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Defendants Stanislav Dudko (“Dudko”) and Anastasia Pukhalskaya (“Pukhalskaya”) signed a Guaranty Agreement as to the Lease. (Compl. ¶ 14.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting two causes of action:
1. Breach of Lease Agreement; and,
2. Breach of Written Guaranty.
On December 14, 2021, defendants GFBC and Pukhalskaya filed an Answer.
On February 9, 2022, default was entered against Dudko.
On February 7, 2023, attorney Dro Menassian (“Menassian”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Anastasia Pukhalskaya.
No Opposition has been filed.
DISCUSSION
Attorney Dro Menassian moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Anastasia Pukhalskaya.
California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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 and declaration 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)).
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. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)
Here, Menassian states that Pukhalskaya refuses to pay a past due unpaid invoice. The trial date is some time away and Pukhalskaya will have sufficient time to hire new counsel and/or request a continuance of the September 5, 2023 trial date.
While Menassian’s application is largely in compliance with rule 3.1362, the Court notes that Menassian failed to complete sections 5-9 on form MC-053. Additionally, the Court notes that Menassian’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for GFBC suffers from the same defect. Menassian is to file completed MC-053 forms as to both clients.
CONCLUSION
The hearing on Menassian’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for defendant Anastasia Pukhalskaya is CONTINUED until May 8, 2023.
Menassian is to file completed form MC-053’s as to both Pukhalskaya and GFBC.
DATED: May 3, 2023
____________________________
Hon. Jill T. Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
