This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/21/2021 at 13:47:11 (UTC).

CROSSROADS INTERCONTINENTAL LTD VS RICHARD BENICHOU ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/20/2009 CROSSROADS INTERCONTINENTAL LTD filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RICHARD BENICHOU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY W. ALARCON and MATTHEW ST. GEORGE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4160

  • Filing Date:

    05/20/2009

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY W. ALARCON

MATTHEW ST. GEORGE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CROSSROADS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

JEANTET FREDERIC

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BENICHOU RICHARD DEFAULT

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

UNLIMITED RESOURCES GROUP INC. DEFAULT

Not Classified By Court

HERZLICH & BLUM LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COHEN BARRY L. ESQ.

HERZLICH ALLAN

Defendant Attorneys

GRAFF BETH E. ESQ.

RUCKER FRED ESQ.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

HERZLICH ALLAN EDWARD

 

Court Documents

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT ETC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUIHORITIES IN SUPPORT

1/10/2013: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT ETC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUIHORITIES IN SUPPORT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OPPOSING NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM PLAINTIFF?S ATTORNEYS; ETC

2/7/2013: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OPPOSING NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER FROM PLAINTIFF?S ATTORNEYS; ETC

NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

6/13/2013: NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

MEMO OF COSTS AFTER JUDGEMENT, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CREDIT AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST -

9/3/2013: MEMO OF COSTS AFTER JUDGEMENT, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CREDIT AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST -

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

6/26/2015: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

NOTICE OF RULING.

7/1/2016: NOTICE OF RULING.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketProof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Allan Edward Herzlich (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Allan Edward Herzlich (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ((Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketOrder (granting mtn to be relieved); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Allan Edward Herzlich (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Allan Edward Herzlich (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2016
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2016
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING.

    Read MoreRead Less
363 More Docket Entries
  • 07/07/2009
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2009
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2009
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Crossroads International, LTD. (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2009
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2009
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2009
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2009
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR : 1. BREACH OF KNIT APPAREL AGREEMENT ; 2. ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2009
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2009
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF KNIT APPAREL AGREEMENT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2009
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC414160    Hearing Date: January 29, 2021    Dept: 36

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

CROSSROADS INTERCONTINENTAL, LTD., a Mauritian company,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD BENICHOU, an individual; UNLIMITED RESOURCES GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC414160

Hearing Date: 1/29/2021

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Counsel Herzlich & Blum, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Crossroads Intercontinental, Ltd. is granted.

 

Relevant Law

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398.)

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d).)

 

Discussion

Counsel Herzlich & Blum, LLP, seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Crossroads Intercontinental, Ltd., on grounds of a “[d]ifference of opinion as to how best to proceed to enforce the Judgment.” A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(a), (c), and (e), Counsel has provided each application on Judicial Counsel forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Counsel has attested that the client has been served by mail with the mail address confirmed within the last 30 days pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d). The proof of service discloses mail was sent to the client in Bangalore, India on December 14, 2020, adding 20 calendar days to the 16 court day notice period, and notice is timely for the January 29, 2021 hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)

This case resulted in a Judgment that was signed and filed on June 15, 2011. There are no further dates in this action save for the motion to be relieved as counsel, which date has been disclosed.

California courts require an attorney to, before terminating representation, take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel. (Cal. Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16.) An attorney violates his or her ethical mandate by withdrawing at a critical point in litigation and thereby prejudicing the client’s case. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) In the case of a corporation, special rules apply for an attorney to withdraw. “[A] corporation cannot act in propria persona in a California state court.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) An attorney may still withdraw, however, on proper grounds; the effect is that the corporation is without representation and without ability to practice self-representation, putting extreme pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel for risk of forfeiture of its rights. (Id. at 503-04.)

In light that there are no further dates set in this action, and no opposition to the motion, there is no showing of prejudice to the client.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.

 

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HERZLICH ALLAN