RICHARD ROGACHEFSKY ET AL VS RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT LLC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC577017    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Richard Rogachefsky, M.D., et al. v. Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC

BC577017

1. Louis E. Shoch’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant RIMB TT, LLC

   TENTATIVE RULING

   Louis E. Shoch’s, of Law Office of Louis Shoch, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant RIMB TT, LLC is granted.

   Louis E. Shoch of Law Offices of Louis Shoch, Counsel for Defendant RIMB TT, LLC moves to be relieved as counsel. Counsel states, in his declaration, valid reasons for withdrawal.

   The court finds that the attorney has served the client and filed a declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, have been satisfied. The court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) instead of filing a consent under section 284(1). While the client has consented to the withdrawal, a substitution of counsel could not be filed because the client is a corporation which has yet to retain new counsel.

   The motion is therefore granted.

   The court orders that the attorney is relieved as counsel of record for defendant RIMB TT, LLC effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” (Judicial Council form MC-053) upon the client. Defendant’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” (Judicial Council form MC-053).

Case Number: BC577017    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Richard Rogachefsky, M.D., et al. v. Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC

BC577017

1. Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Quash Service of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

   TENTATIVE RULING

   Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Quash Service of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is moot.

   Moving party, non-party Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC, is not a party to this action. Moving party was dismissed in this action on April 1, 2016. Thus, it has no obligation to respond to service of a summons and complaint to which it was not a party. The fact that moving party is not a party was reiterated twice, first in the Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses against moving party and, second, in denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this order.

   As indicated, Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC was dismissed from this action on April 1, 2016. In the prior discovery motion and reconsideration motion, Plaintiffs argued extensively that they did not intend to dismiss this entity but instead to dismiss solely the specific Torrance hotel. Simply because the dismissal included the address of the specific hotel location owned by this Defendant does not mean that the dismissal was not effective to dismiss this entity.

   Therefore, because moving party is not a party to this action, any motion to dismiss this entity is moot. In addition, any motion to quash service to this entity is moot because it has no obligation to respond to a summons in an action to which it is not a party.

   The moving party, non-party Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC, is ordered to give notice of this ruling.