This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/16/2021 at 01:51:29 (UTC).

TEANDRA ROBINSON, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/06/2020 TEANDRA ROBINSON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3110

  • Filing Date:

    04/06/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SUMBLER LOUIS

ROBINSON LEANDRA

ROBINSON TEANDRA

VINCENT HENNIGS

Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

VAN HOESEN GREGORY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MIFFLIN KEN

Defendant Attorneys

THOMAS ALLEN LEE

LINARES LEONARD L.

 

Court Documents

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint (1st)

11/12/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint (1st)

Answer - Answer

12/11/2020: Answer - Answer

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

12/30/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

1/12/2021: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint (1st)

1/12/2021: Summons - Summons on Complaint (1st)

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

4/7/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

4/7/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

4/21/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/9/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/14/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/14/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

6/14/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/16/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/3/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/3/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/3/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/3/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings) of 08/18/2021

8/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings) of 08/18/2021

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2023
  • Hearing04/10/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2022
  • Hearing01/11/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • Hearing10/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • Hearing10/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...) of 09/21/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/21/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/21/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/21/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
59 More Docket Entries
  • 06/24/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: LeAndra Robinson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • Docket** Case Name changed from LEANDRA ROBINSON, et al. vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. to TEANDRA ROBINSON, et al. vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by: LeAndra Robinson (Plaintiff); Louis Sumbler (Plaintiff); As to: County of Los Angeles (Defendant); County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/10/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: LeAndra Robinson (Plaintiff); Louis Sumbler (Plaintiff); As to: County of Los Angeles (Defendant); County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LeAndra Robinson (Plaintiff); Louis Sumbler (Plaintiff); As to: County of Los Angeles (Defendant); County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC03110 Hearing Date: September 21, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1&2)\r\nMOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,\r\nSET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3&4)\r\nMOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND\r\nREQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nCounty of Los Angeles

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION\r\nOF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant County of Los Angeles’\r\nmotions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for\r\nProduction of Documents are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of\r\nSeptember 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n& Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs Teandra\r\nRobinson (“Robinson”) and Louis Sumbler (“Sumbler”) filed this action against\r\nthe County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued separately as the County of Los\r\nAngeles and County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“COLA”). Plaintiffs\r\nfiled an amendment to the Complaint on June 1, 2020, substituting Gregory Van\r\nHoesen (“Hoesen”) for Doe 1. A First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on\r\nNovember 12, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant COLA and Hoesen filed an\r\nAnswer on December 11, 2020. Defendant COLA filed a Cross-Complaint against\r\nPlaintiff Robinson and Hennings Vincent (“Vincent”) on January 12, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiffs’\r\ncounsel Ken Mifflin of the Law Office of Mifflin and Associates filed a motion\r\nto be relieved.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nfiled the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Louis Sumbler to Respond to\r\nDemand for Production of Documents and for Sanctions, (2) Motion to Compel\r\nPlaintiff Louis Sumbler to Respond to Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions,\r\n(3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Teandra Robinson to Respond to Demand for\r\nProduction of Documents and for Sanctions, (4) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Louis\r\nSumbler to Respond to Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions, (collectively,\r\nthe “Motions”) on August 3.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court\r\nnotes, however, that the cutoff to have discovery motions heard is 15 days\r\nbefore trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Here, because trial is\r\nscheduled to begin in 12 days, i.e., on October 4, the time to hear discovery\r\nmotions has passed. Notably, Defendant did not move ex parte to move up the\r\nhearing to a date before the discovery cutoff.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nCounty of Los Angeles’ motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form\r\nInterrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents are DENIED WITHOUT\r\nPREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC03110 Hearing Date: September 20, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS\r\nCOUNSEL (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Ken\r\nMifflin

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.162)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Ken Mifflin’s Motions to\r\nbe Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to OCTOBER 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before\r\nthe next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file and serve\r\nsupplemental papers addressing the errors identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,\r\nrule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)\r\n OK

\r\n\r\n

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of September 15, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of September 15, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs\r\nTeAndra Robinson (“Robinson”) and Louis Sumbler (“Sumbler”) filed this action\r\nagainst the County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued separately as the County of\r\nLos Angeles and County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“COLA”). Plaintiff\r\nfiled an amendment to the Complaint on June 1, 2020, substituting Gregory Van\r\nHoesen (“Hoesen”) for Doe 1. A First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on\r\nNovember 12, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant COLA and Hoesen filed an\r\nAnswer on December 11, 2020. Defendant COLA filed a Cross-Complaint against\r\nPlaintiff Robinson and Hennings Vincent (“Vincent”) on January 12, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s\r\nCounsel Ken Mifflin of the Law Office of Mifflin and Associates (“Counsel”)\r\nfiled the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The initial August 19 hearing was\r\ncontinued because Counsel did not file and serve the Petition or Forms MC-052\r\nand MC-053 and because Counsel appeared to have combined two motions into one\r\nwhich the Court found to be improper. (8/19/21 Minute Order.) The Court ordered\r\nCounsel to file and serve supplemental papers at least 16 court days before\r\nthe next scheduled hearing and warned that failure to do so could result in the\r\nMotion being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.) (Emphasis added.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Counsel filed two Amended Motions\r\non September 8, one for Plaintiff Robinson and one for Plaintiff Sumbler. No\r\noppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard

\r\n\r\n

The court may\r\norder that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after\r\njudgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and\r\nafter notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, subd. (2).) “The\r\ndetermination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies\r\nwithin the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128,\r\n1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial\r\nCounsel Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and\r\nMC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c),\r\n(e).)

\r\n\r\n

In\r\naddition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that\r\nthe notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on\r\nthe client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal\r\nservice, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must\r\nbe accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

\r\n\r\n

(A)\r\nThe service address is the current residence or business address of the client;\r\nor

\r\n\r\n

(B) The\r\nservice address is the last known residence or business address of the client\r\nand the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making\r\nreasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to\r\nbe relieved.

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) &\r\n(2).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ Counsel seeks to be\r\nrelieved due to a lack of communication with both Plaintiffs. (MC-052, ¶¶ 2.)\r\nSpecifically, Counsel explains he has attempted to contact both Plaintiffs by\r\nphone and mail without success for over a year. (Id.) He also states\r\nthat, when placing calls to Plaintiffs, they hang up on him. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Confusingly, Counsel states that he\r\nconfirmed Plaintiffs’ last known address via telephone at most 30 days before\r\nthis Motion was filed and that he was unable to confirm Plaintiffs’ last known\r\naddress despite his efforts. (Id. at ¶¶ 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, the Motion was served\r\non Plaintiffs only 7 court days before this hearing, depriving them of\r\nsufficient notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, the Court will CONTINUE the\r\nhearing one final time so that the above errors may be corrected.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the\r\nforegoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Counsel\r\nKen Mifflin’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to OCTOBER 19,\r\n2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least\r\n16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file\r\nand serve supplemental papers addressing the errors identified herein. Failure\r\nto do so will result in the Motions being placed off\r\ncalendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’\r\nCounsel is ordered to give notice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC03110 Hearing Date: August 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS\r\nCOUNSEL (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Ken\r\nMifflin

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.162)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Ken Mifflin’s Motions to\r\nbe Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before\r\nthe next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file and serve\r\nsupplemental papers addressing the errors identified herein. Failure to do so\r\nmay result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule\r\n3.1300) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) NO

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of August 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of August 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs\r\nTeAndra Robinson (“Robinson”) and Louis Sumbler (“Sumbler”) filed this action\r\nagainst the County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued separately as the County of\r\nLos Angeles and County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“COLA”). Plaintiff\r\nfiled an amendment to the Complaint on June 1, 2020, substituting Gregory Van\r\nHoesen (“Hoesen”) for Doe 1. A First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on\r\nNovember 12, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant COLA and Hoesen filed an\r\nAnswer on December 11, 2020. Defendant COLA filed a Cross-Complaint against\r\nPlaintiff Robinson and Hennings Vincent (“Vincent”) on January 12, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s\r\nCounsel Ken Mifflin of the Law Office of Mifflin and Associates (“Counsel”)\r\nfiled the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion”). No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard

\r\n\r\n

The court may\r\norder that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after\r\njudgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and\r\nafter notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, subd. (2).) “The\r\ndetermination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies\r\nwithin the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128,\r\n1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial\r\nCounsel Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and\r\nMC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c),\r\n(e).)

\r\n\r\n

In\r\naddition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that\r\nthe notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on\r\nthe client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal\r\nservice, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must\r\nbe accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

\r\n\r\n

(A)\r\nThe service address is the current residence or business address of the client;\r\nor

\r\n\r\n

(B) The\r\nservice address is the last known residence or business address of the client\r\nand the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making\r\nreasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to\r\nbe relieved.

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) &\r\n(2).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First, the Court notes that Counsel\r\ndid not comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.\r\nSpecifically, Counsel did not file and serve Forms MC-052 and MC-053 and did\r\nnot serve a copy of this Motion on Plaintiffs themselves.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, Counsel appears to\r\nhave combined his requests to be relieved as both Plaintiff Robinson’s and\r\nPlaintiff Slumber’s attorney into a single Motion. This is improper. Counsel\r\nmust file one Motion for each Plaintiff and serve all parties in this action\r\nwith each Motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Counsel is ordered to file and\r\nserve supplemental papers correcting these errors.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the\r\nforegoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Counsel\r\nKen Mifflin’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to SEPTEMBER 20,\r\n2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least\r\n16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file\r\nand serve supplemental papers addressing the errors identified herein. Failure\r\nto do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs’\r\nCounsel is ordered to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer LINARES LEONARD L.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer THOMAS ALLEN L. ESQ.