Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV04750, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04750 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
I.INTRODUCTION
This action arises from alleged uninhabitable conditions at aproperty located at 940 Magnolia Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90006 (the “Property”).
On March 3, 2023, Plaintiffs Juan Luis Lopez Aguilar; Lidia AndreaLara Morales; Richard Matthew Lopez Lara, a minor by and through his guardian adlitem Lidia Andrea Lara Morales; Juan Luiz Lopez Aguilar Jr., a minor byand through his guardian ad litem Lidia Andrea Lara Morales; MelanieAmayrani Lopez Lara, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem LidiaAndrea Lara Morales; and Jonathan Yahve Lopez Lara, a minor by and through hisguardian ad litem Lidia Andrea Lara Morales (collectively “Plaintiffs”)filed a Complaint against Defendant 940 Magnolia LLC (“Defendant”) allegingcauses of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2)Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant ofQuiet Enjoyment; (4) Negligence; (5) Violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; (6)Private Nuisance; and (7) Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.
On May 25, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On July 6, 2023, a Substitution of Attorney was filed and servedindicating that Joshua Bordin-Wosk was Defendant’s former legal representativeand that Defendant’s new legal representative is Leonard S. Kirschen ofStratman & Williams-Abrego.
On August 21, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Change of FirmName and Handling Attorney indicating that the attorneys of record forDefendant have changed its firm name from Stratman & Williams-Abrego to LawOffices of Scott C Stratman effective immediately. The Notice of Change of FirmName and Handling Attorney was served on all parties on August 19, 2023.
On April 16, 2024, Friedman & Chapman, LLP (“Counsel”) filedand served a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Juan Luis LopezAguilar (“Mr. Aguilar”).
II.LEGALSTANDARD
The court mayorder that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or afterjudgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney andafter notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “Thedetermination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lieswithin the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)
An application to be relieved as counsel mustbe made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court,rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in theaction or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)
Further, the requisite forms must be served onthe client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay the effective date of the orderrelieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on theclient has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Amotion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice theclient. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)
III.DISCUSSION
Roy Diaz of Friedman & Chapman, LLP declares that there has beena lack of communication with Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Aguilar has not beencooperative. (Form MC-052; Diaz Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel has tried to contact Mr.Aguilar repeatedly by telephone and by mail since November 2023 without anyresponse. (Diaz Decl., ¶ 3.) Mr. Diaz’s office staff contacted Mr. Aguilar’sprevious partner and his partner stated that she did not know of hiswhereabouts and does not have any current contact information. (Diaz Decl., ¶4.) In the last mail correspondence to Mr. Aguilar, which was sent on March 27,2024, Counsel advised him that if they did not hear back from him by April 3,2024, then they would file a motion to withdraw. (Diaz Decl., ¶ ¶ 3, 5.) Due tothe lack of cooperation and communication with Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Diaz’s officeis unable to provide discovery responses and is now seeking to be relieved ascounsel of record. (Diaz Decl., ¶ 7.)
Upon review the court finds that the Motion complies withCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
IV.CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED and effective uponthe filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon Plaintiff JuanLuis Lopez Aguilar.
Friedman & Chapman, LLP is ordered to give notice.
Datedthis 5th day of August 2024
| Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court |
