This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 10:41:58 (UTC).

ARACELI RIOS ET AL VS PABLO FLORES ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/08/2015 ARACELI RIOS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PABLO FLORES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARC MARMARO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8025

  • Filing Date:

    04/08/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARC MARMARO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

MALDONADO GILBERTO

RIOS ARACELI

RIOS FRANCISCO

RIOS RODOLFO

RIOS ROSELLY

TORRES CONSUELO

RIOS CRISTIAN

DELGADILLO JOEL

RIOS MIRIAM

RIOS RUBY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

FLORES PABLO

FLORES VERONICA M.

Minor

DELGADILLO MILLY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

LEVIAN LAW PLC

SHAH PARTH NILAM

Defendant Attorney

CZAJKOWSKYJ CYRIL

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF CYRIL CZAJKOWSKYJ MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MEET AND CONER REQUIREMENT PER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 430.41 (A), 435.5 IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COM

4/3/2018: DECLARATION OF CYRIL CZAJKOWSKYJ MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MEET AND CONER REQUIREMENT PER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 430.41 (A), 435.5 IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COM

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; ETC.

5/22/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; ETC.

REPLY OF DEFENDANTS PABLO FLORES AND VERONICA M. FLORES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

5/29/2018: REPLY OF DEFENDANTS PABLO FLORES AND VERONICA M. FLORES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

REPLY OF DEFENDANTS PABLO FLORES AND VERONICA M. FLORES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/29/2018: REPLY OF DEFENDANTS PABLO FLORES AND VERONICA M. FLORES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING THE COURT SUSTAINS THE DEMURRER TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO PLAINTIFFS CONSUELO TORRES,; ETC.

6/5/2018: COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING THE COURT SUSTAINS THE DEMURRER TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO PLAINTIFFS CONSUELO TORRES,; ETC.

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/6/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/6/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Reply

6/12/2019: Reply

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/17/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT

10/9/2015: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/30/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/30/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/30/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/30/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

2/22/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/15/2016: Minute Order

REQUEST AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE OF FILING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT HEARING

7/15/2016: REQUEST AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE OF FILING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT HEARING

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

6/15/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Opposition (Supplemental Points & Authorities In Opposition to Pl MTC); Filed by Pablo Flores (Defendant); Veronica M. Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Reply (to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses and Request for Sanctions); Filed by Araceli Rios (Plaintiff); Gilberto Maldonado (Plaintiff); Francisco Rios (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Opposition (to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses); Filed by Pablo Flores (Defendant); Veronica M. Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 37; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (In Chambers Court Order) of 04/03/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (In Chambers Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
136 More Docket Entries
  • 05/07/2015
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2015
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Araceli Rios (Plaintiff); Consuelo Torres (Plaintiff); Gilberto Maldonado (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2015
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2015
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC578025    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC578025

CASE NAME: Araceli Rios, et al. v. Pablo Flores, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Levian Law and K. Kevin Levian, counsel for Plaintiffs Araceli Rios, Cristian Rios, Roselly Rios, Joel Delgadillo, Milly Delgadillo, Gilberto Maldonado, Rodolfo Rios, Francisco Rios, Miriam Rios, Ruby Rios, Consuelo Torres.

OPPOSING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: April 7, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Levian Law and K. Kevin Levian’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs Araceli Rios, Cristian Rios, Roselly Rios, Joel Delgadillo, Milly Delgadillo, Gilberto Maldonado, Rodolfo Rios, Francisco Rios, Miriam Rios, Ruby Rios, Consuelo Torres.

TENTATIVE: Good cause appearing, Levian Law and K. Kevin Levian’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED. Moving counsel is to provide notice.

Procedural Requirements

The moving party must comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 before a motion to be relieved as counsel may be granted.

Notice: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a) and Code Civil Procedure, section 284, Notice of Motion and Motion to be relieved as counsel must be served on the client and made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Form MC-051.

Served on client –The court has reviewed each of the motions to be relieved as counsel and notes that the motions as to Consuelo Torres and Araceli Rios were served at 335 E. 109th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061, while the motions as to the remaining Plaintiffs were served at 1657 W. 126th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90047.

However, as all plaintiffs were present on January 27, 2020 at moving counsel’s ex parte to consolidate the hearings on the instant motions to be relieved and all orally acknowledged notice of this hearing in open court. The court finds that service of the motions were sufficient as all plaintiffs received notice of moving counsel’s intent to withdraw.

On Form MC-051 – Yes

Declaration: California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c) requires that the motion be accompanied by a declaration of counsel on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Form MC-052 and state in general terms, without compromising confidentiality, the basis for withdrawal.

Grounds for Motion – Moving counsel attests as to each of his clients that there has been a “disruption” in the attorney-client relationship which makes it impossible for moving counsel to proceed with representing Plaintiffs. Moving counsel further attests that on November 25, 2019, his clients appeared at an order to show cause hearing before the court and informed the court that they were retracting their signatures from the settlement agreement and desired to find new counsel to have their trial heard.

General terms, without compromising confidentiality – Yes

On Form MC-052 – Yes

Service: California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d) requires that the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order are served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. When served by mail under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1013, the notice must be accompanied a declaration confirming the address of the client.

Client served –As described above, the instant motion pertaining to Plaintiffs Consuelo Torres and Araceli Rios were served at one address while the remaining Plaintiffs were served at another. Further, Form MC-052 as to each Plaintiff indicates that moving counsel has been unable to confirm that the mailing addresses are current or locate a more current address, and that moving counsel has been sending email to his clients. However, the email attached as Exhibit 1 to each of the forms MC-052 indicates that it was sent to aracelirios335@gmail.com. There is no indication from the moving papers, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d), that this email address is current for any of the Plaintiffs.

However, as all plaintiffs were present on January 27, 2020 at moving counsel’s ex parte to consolidate the hearings on the instant motions to be relieved, the court finds that service of the motions were sufficient as all plaintiffs received notice of moving counsel’s intent to withdraw.

Client Address confirmed – Possibly insufficient. Moving counsel attests that he was unable to confirm the mailing address for each client and that emails were sent to each client. However, Exhibit 1 to each form MC-052 shows an email to the same address, aracelirios335@gmail.com.

Opposing Counsel served – Yes.

Timely Served and Filed – Yes

Order: California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed order relieving counsel be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Form MC-053 and specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action.

On Form MC-053 – Yes.

Specify hearing dates – Yes

Substantive Merits

Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. “The right of counsel to withdraw from pending litigation is not absolute.” (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197.) Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (See Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d. at p. 197; Chaleff v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) An attorney, either with client’s consent or court’s approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests. A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar, 49 Cal.3d 753, 758-759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at 197).

Where the procedures are properly followed, withdrawal is permitted in the appropriate circumstances. Pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(A)(2), “[a] member shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”

Moving counsel attests that withdraw is required as to each of his clients because there has been a “disruption” in the attorney-client relationship which makes it impossible for moving counsel to proceed with representing Plaintiffs. Moving counsel further attests that on November 25, 2019, his clients appeared at an order to show cause hearing before the court and informed the court that they were retracting their signatures from the settlement agreement and desired to find new counsel to have their trial heard.

A trial is scheduled in this matter on April 7, 2020 at 10:00am, while the final status conference for this matter is scheduled for March 30, 2020 at 8:30 am. Given the foregoing, moving counsel has demonstrated good cause to be relieved as counsel. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Good cause appearing, Levian Law and K. Kevin Levian’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED. Moving counsel is to provide notice.