Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC708104, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC708104    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   February 23, 2023                              

CASE NAME:           Sergey Grishin v. Twelve Productions Ltd.

CASE NO.:                BC708104

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Counsel for Plaintiffs Sergey Grishin and SG Acquisitions, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 21, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Sergey Grishin and SG Acquisitions, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs Sergey Grishin (“Grishin”) and his company SG Acquisitions, LLC (“SGA”) filed a Complaint on May 29, 2018 against Defendants Anna Fedoseeva (“Fedoseeva”) and Jennifer Sulkess (“Sulkess”) and their movie production company, Twelve Production, Ltd. (“TP”), alleging that they defrauded Grishin and his company to loan or invest approximately half a million dollars in Fedoseeva and Sulkess’s movie production company. 

Fedoseeva and Sulkess filed a Cross-complaint on January 24, 2019 and the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) on February 21, 2019 against Grishin and Roes. The FACC asserts the following causes of action: 

1.                  Cyberstalking in violation of Civil Code § 646.9; 

2.                  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 

3.                  Invasion of Privacy; 

4.                  Domestic Violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6; 

5.                  Assault; 

6.                  Battery; 

7.                  False Imprisonment; 

8.                  Civil Extortion by Letter in violation of Penal Code §§ 518 et seq. 

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

Both Motions to be Relieved as Counsel were filed on January 17, 2023. No Opposition has been filed as of February 21, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other.   (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (b).)  An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation.  (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).)  “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)   

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(e)).   

Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(d).)  The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(e).) 

ANALYSIS:

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, Withers Bergman LLP and Amman Khan, moves to be relieved as counsel.[1] The Declaration in Support of Attorneys’ Motion states that there has been a material breach of terms regarding payment. Additionally, there has been a breakdown of the relationship between counsel and client Grishin, including co-plaintiff SG Acquisitions, LLC, that makes unreasonably difficult to continue representation.

Counsel has provided all the required documents under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362. The Proof of Service filed concurrently indicates that Defendants, Case Manager for Discovery Referee Hon. Suzanne Bruguera, and Plaintiffs were served via email and mail.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED effective upon filing proof of service of this order on each Defendant.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             February 23, 2023                   _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court