This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 00:06:29 (UTC).

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ALVAREZ VS JUAN G. ALVAREZ

Case Summary

On 11/16/2016 MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ALVAREZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against JUAN G ALVAREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8861

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ALVAREZ MARIA DE LOS ANGELES

Defendant

ALVAREZ JUAN G.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF GEORGINA LEPE

Defendant Attorney

XAVIER DAVID A. LAW OFFICES OF

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/26/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; (Hearing-Mediation; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • Stipulation; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Trial Setting Conference (Trial Setting Conference; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • Answer; Filed by JUAN G. ALVAREZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Hearing on Demurrer; Demurrer overruled) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Continued by Stipulation) -

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by JUAN G. ALVAREZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • Demurrer; Filed by JUAN G. ALVAREZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2016
  • Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by ALVAREZ, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC068861    Hearing Date: July 13, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Monday, July 13, 2020

NOTICE: See below[1]

RE: Alvarez v. Alvarez (KC068861)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Counsel for Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Alvarez’s (i.e., Estelle & Kennedy, APLC)

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 6/30/20, 8:11 a.m.; due 6/29/20)

Tentative Ruling

Counsel for Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Alvarez’s (i.e., Estelle & Kennedy, APLC)

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff’s

production of a proof of service reflecting CCP § 1005(b) compliance regarding notice of

the July 13, 2020 hearing date/time to the Client and Defendant and effective upon the filing

of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client.

Background

Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Juan G. Alvarez (“Defendant”) are siblings. Plaintiff alleges that on July 25, 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant purchased the property located at 219 S. Siesta Avenue in La Puente (“subject property”). Defendant was the only person listed on the grant deed; however, it was agreed that Plaintiff was also part owner of the subject property, and that Defendant held title in trust for Plaintiff. On October 14, 2011, Defendant executed a grant deed transferring title of the subject property to himself and his/Plaintiff’s sister, Eulalia Alvarez Carranza (“Carranza”), as joint tenants. On June 6, 2015, Defendant and Carranza executed a joint tenancy grant deed, transferring title of the subject property to Defendant and Plaintiff, as joint tenants. Plaintiff seeks to partition the subject property. Plaintiff also seeks obtain her share of rental payments and monies received in connection with a loan modification on the subject property. Plaintiff further claims that she gave Defendant $10,000 in 2011 for the purchase of the subject property, but that Defendant used these monies for personal expenditures and ultimately only repaid Plaintiff $5,000. On November 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Partition of Real Property

  2. Accounting

  3. Money Had and Received

    On May 22, 2017, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action without leave to amend. On November 8, 2017, a Stipulation re: Settlement was filed and the court ordered the action dismissed pursuant to CCP § 664.6, with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action, with prejudice.

Discussion

Estella & Kennedy, APLC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff

(“Client”).

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.)

California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

Barbara M. Moore (“Moore”) of Firm states in her declaration that “Plaintiff-Client did not voluntarily consent to Counsel’s request to be relieved. Further, Client breached an agreement or obligation to Counsel as to expenses or fees and/or there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship which renders it unreasonably difficult for Counsel to carry out its employment effectively for Client, CPC, Rule 1.16(b)(5).”

Moore states that she has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with her declaration and that she has been able to confirm, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by mail, return receipt requested.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated

above have been sufficiently met. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, contingent upon

counsel for Plaintiff’s production of a proof of service reflecting CCP §1015 compliance

regarding notice of the July 13, 2020 hearing date/time to the Client and Defendant and effective

upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client.


[1] The motion was filed on May 28, 2020; no proof of service was filed therewith. On June 2, 2020, a “Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations” (“Notice of Continuance”) was filed, in which the court set the motion for hearing on July 13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; notice was given to Plaintiff’s former counsel (i.e., Law Office of Georgina Lepe) and to Defendant’s counsel David A. Xavier (“Xavier”). [Note: There was never a substitution of attorney filed with respect to Plaintiff’s representation. Lepe was Plaintiff’s counsel as of the December 11, 2017 request for dismissal date; however, the motion to enforce settlement filed July 29, 2019 was filed by moving counsel (i.e., Michael L. Kennedy and Barbara M. Moore of Estelle & Kennedy]. On June 11, 2020, three proofs of service were filed, which reflected that Plaintiff, Defendant and Xavier were each mail-served with the motion on June 5, 2020. These proofs of service, however, do not reflect that the June 2, 2020 “Notice of Continuance” was among the documents mailed to Plaintiff, Defendant and Xavier. There is no indication on ecourt as of June 30, 2020 at 8:11 a.m. that moving counsel and/or Plaintiff (i.e., the Client) has received notice of the July 13, 2020 hearing date/time. Likewise, it appears that Defendant may now be in pro per (i.e., based on the October 1, 2019 minute order), although there has been no formal “Substitution of Attorney” filed. There is no indication that Defendant in pro per has been given notice of the July 13, 2020 hearing date/time, as of June 30, 2020 at 8:11 a.m.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer XAVIER DAVID A.