Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01077, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22VECV01077 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: W
MICHAEL Z LAVIE V. ENCINO OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Date
of Hearing: May 5, 2023 Trial Date: None set
Department:
W Case
No: 22VECV01077
Moving Party:
Adam Michael Sacks, counsel of
record for Plaintiff Michael Z. Lavie
Responding
Party: None
Notice: Proper
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Michael Z. Lavie alleges he
is a homeowner of a condominium commonly known as 5460 White Oak Ave., Unit
F-208, Encino, California 91316. The condominium is part and parcel of Defendant
Encino Homeowners Association. Plaintiff alleges in March 2020, a water pipe in
Plaintiff’s condominium Unit exploded, causing severe water damage to the inner
walls of the Unit, floors, and living room and dining room. As the damages
originated from the original construction of the building, Plaintiff alleges
the repairs were the HOA’s responsibility. Plaintiff alleges, however, after a
few weeks of construction, Defendants stopped paying the construction company
and as a result, the contractor stopped work for lack of payment. Plaintiff
contends his unit has now sat dormant in complete disrepair from about mid-April
2020 to present. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Julie Heldt, Richard Donatone,
Jeff Tola, and Miste Holloway hold positions on the HOA board and Defendant
Brad Watson is the owner of Defendant Property Management Professionals, the
property management company for the HOA. Plaintiff contends Defendant Witkin
& Neal are also property managers who collect the HOA dues and disburse
monies at the direction of the HOA.
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Z.
Lavie filed a complaint against Defendants Encino Oaks Homeowners Association, Witkin
& Neal, Inc., Brad Watson individually and dba Property Management Professionals,
LLC, Julie Heldt, Richard Donatone, Jeff Tola, and Miste Holloway, asserting
causes of action for 1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 2) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; 3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 4) Elder
Abuse; 5) Breach of Contract – Written; and 6) Breach of Contract – Implied.
TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT
Counsel contends there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the
attorney-client relationship. Plaintiff is not communicating with counsel and
not taking the advice of counsel. Counsel's inability to communicate with
Plaintiff ethically requires an application for an order to withdraw
as attorney for Plaintiff. Plaintiff refuses to execute a
substitution of attorney form requiring the filing of the instant Motion.
Counsel contends no prejudice will be imparted upon any party by granting the
instant request.
Counsel has complied with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1362 by
filing forms MC-051 and MC-052 and lodging with the Court a copy of the
proposed order on form MC-053. Counsel confirmed Plaintiff’s last known address
by response to mailings by counsel to Plaintiff's current address.
Trial is not set. The next hearing is May 5, 2023 for a Case
Management Conference.
Accordingly, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.