Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21STCV23752 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV23752, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23752 Hearing Date: April 11, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: April 11, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV23752

CASE NAME: Lannette Johnson v. Kevin Chambers

¿ ¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Lannette Johnson

RESPONDING PARTY: Attorney for Plaintiff, Lannette Johnson

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Reconsideration

Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

¿¿

On August 24, 2022, Mr. Douglas, Plaintiff, Lannette Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) former counsel served Plaintiff with “Notice of Order Granting Motion to be Relieved as Counsel and Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant; Motion to Consolidate; Case Management Conference; OSC Failure to Prosecute, Failure to File Proof of Service” (the “Notice”). Mr. Douglas notes he provided all parties with notice that on August 24, 2022, this Court granted his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff in this case.

Plaintiff now files a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2022 order entered by Judge Tanaka Granting Frederic Douglas’ Request to be Relieved as Counsel.

B. Procedural

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On March 20, 2023, Mr. Douglas filed an opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

¿II. GROUNDS FOR MOTIONS

Plaintiff has requested that this Court order Mr. Douglas, plaintiff’s former counsel, to step back into the case on a limited basis only to write an amended complaint against Defendant, Kevin Chambers. Plaintiff asserts that she hired him to write an amended complaint in August 2021, and it had not been done as of August 24, 2022.

III. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make an application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on an ex parte motion.

…

(e)¿This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subds. (a), (b), (e).)

B. Discussion

Here, a minute order was made on August 24, 2022, granting Mr. Douglas’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed this present motion. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Douglas cannot claim a “breakdown in communication” when he created the breakdown. Plaintiff further argues that Mr. Douglas behaved corruptly, unprofessionally, and intentionally when he sabotaged Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff also notes she did not respond to moving papers due to being acutely ill, something that was known to Mr. Douglas. Despite this knowledge, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Douglas refused to write, as requested by her several times, a Motion to Stay litigation in this case and Johnson’s other cases. Plaintiff asserts that she paid Mr. Douglas from July 2021 to March 2022 over $31,000, when Mr. Douglas simply “talked on the phone” with no discovery conducted and having never talked to the witness against Defendant.

In opposition, Mr. Douglas argues that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, noting Plaintiff had only the statutory ten days after August 24, 2022 to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Douglas notes that since Monday, September 5, 2022, was a Court holiday (Labor Day), the Motion for Reconsideration must have been served and filed by September 6, 2022. However, Plaintiff did not file her motion until September 13 or September 14, 2022. Further, Mr. Douglas notes that Plaintiff’s motion suggest that she wants the Court to force Mr. Douglas to represent her after she has asserted that his representation had been “terrible.” Lastly, Mr. Douglas notes that the lack of communication and participation by Plaintiff began and continued long before April 28, 2022. Mr. Douglas asserts that he had not received any emails, letters, telephone calls, or other communications from Plaintiff, that substantively cooperated with his request for information to represent her interest, since at least March 30, 2022, other than a few messages criticizing his representation in the case, avoiding attending depositions in other cases, or asserting the ex parte application to reconsider the Court’s order.

The Court agrees that based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Mr. Douglas should not be forced to work with Plaintiff, whether for free or for compensation, in any future legal proceedings in this case. The Court’s review of the files reflects that the motion to enable Mr. Douglas to be relieved as counsel of record was made for good cause shown, regardless of whether there were aspects of his representation that had not been completed by the date Judge Tanaka granted the motion for to be relieved as counsel. Further, the motion was untimely.

IV. CONCLUSION¿

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Mr. Douglas is to give notice of the ruling.