Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 00:04:12 (UTC).

DIVERSYFUND INCOME FUND LLC ET AL VS MARK BASTOROUS ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 DIVERSYFUND INCOME FUND LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARK BASTOROUS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9181

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • 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

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

QDD15 LLC

CCFG INVESTMENT FUND LLC

CAMARA MARYLOU

ABRAMS LYDIA

CUSTODIAN FBO ROBERT NG PROFIT SHARING

MILLENNIUM TRUST COMPANY LLC

MELILLO MARIO

DIBERSYFUND INCOME FUND LLC

TRAN BAO

NATENSTEDT CHRISTOPHER

NATENSTEDT NANCY

COUNTY ASSOCIATES LLC

NANDWANI BALRAJ

ABRAMS FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST UNDER

CUSODIAN FBO ROBERT NG PROFIT SHARING PLAN & TRUST

DIVERSYFUND INCOME FUND LLC FKA CCFG INVESTMENT FUND LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants and Respondents

BASTOROUS MARK

SHENOUDA BERNADETTE

DOES 1-40 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BLACKINTON-HERD HEATHER ESQ.

HERD HEATHER NICOLE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/15/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

6/6/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Minute Order

8/22/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/20/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

2/20/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

3/20/2019: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/18/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/18/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/28/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/1/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

10/11/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: 1.) BREACH OF CONTRACT (GUARANTY) AGAINST MARK BASTOROUS; ETC

10/11/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1.) BREACH OF CONTRACT (GUARANTY) AGAINST MARK BASTOROUS; ETC

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.150 for Plaintiff's Failure to Appear) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Pursuant to Code of Civil P...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy) of 02/20/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy (Conference-Bankruptcy Status; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-22 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 32; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy (Conference-Bankruptcy Status; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-15 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 12/01/2017
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Diversyfund Income Fund, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1.) BREACH OF CONTRACT (GUARANTY) AGAINST MARK BASTOROUS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Diversyfund Income Fund, LLC (Plaintiff); Millennium Trust Company, LLC (Plaintiff); Cusodian FBO Robert Ng Profit Sharing Plan & Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679181    Hearing Date: March 29, 2021    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20


Hearing Date: Monday, March 29, 2021

Case Name: Diversyfund Income Fund LLC, et al. v. Mark Bastorous, et al.

Case No.: BC679181

Motion: Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Heather N. Herd of Rutan & Tucker LLP, attorney of record for Plaintiffs Diversyfund Income Fund LLC; Millennium Trust Company, LLC; Custodian FBO Robert Ng Profit Sharing Plan & Trust; QDD15, LLC; Mario Melillo; Lydia Abrams; Marylou Camara; County Associates, LLC; Christopher Natenstedt; Nancy Natenstedt; Balraj Nandwani; and Bao Tran

Responding Party: N/A (UNOPPOSED)

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motions to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Counsel to give notice and file a proof of service of this Order.


DISCUSSION

An attorney may be changed at any time before or after judgment upon the application of either client or attorney after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284; CRC Rule 3.1362.)  The court has the power to permit withdrawal of an attorney within its sound discretion. (Jones v. Green (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 223.) An attorney may withdraw without good cause as long as the withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interest. That is, counsel cannot withdraw without cause at a “critical point,” but if the case is not at a critical point, the client will not be prejudiced and withdrawal is permitted. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Any motion to be relieved as counsel must be made using mandatory forms filed and served in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1362. 

Here, Heather N. Herd of Rutan & Tucker LLP (“Counsel”) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Diversyfund Income Fund LLC; Millennium Trust Company, LLC; Custodian FBO Robert Ng Profit Sharing Plan & Trust; QDD15, LLC; Mario Melillo; Lydia Abrams; Marylou Camara; County Associates, LLC; Christopher Natenstedt; Nancy Natenstedt; Balraj Nandwani; and Bao Tran. Counsel alleges “[t]here has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship” and that “[e]fforts to repair the relationship have not been successful.” Counsel does not elaborate further. Plaintiffs “declined to sign a substitution of counsel” but did not oppose this Motion.

Counsel used the required forms and effected service by mail in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1362(d)(1). Counsel has sufficiently alleged a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, which is a basis for withdrawal under CRPC Rule 1.16(b). Specific facts are not required to support allegations a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship or conflict of interest.[1] (CRC 3.1362(c) (the supporting declaration must state “in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” the grounds for seeking to withdraw); Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592 (withdrawal should be permitted “[w]here as here the duty not to reveal confidences prevented counsel from further disclosure and the court accepted the good faith of counsel’s representations.”)) Counsel’s allegations that the attorney-client relationship broke down and could not be repaired are adequate under Aceves and Rule 3.1362. Indeed, the filing of a motion to withdraw is a drastic step indicating the attorney does not want to continue representing the client, which is in itself indicative of a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (Younger on California Motions § 17:16 (2d ed.) (“Does a judge require an attorney to represent a client against that attorney's will? . . . Except when a trial date is imminent, the answer is almost invariably ‘no.’ . . . [T]his is simply an untenable situation, whether the litigant realizes it or not.”)) Good cause for withdrawal has been established.

Further, good cause is not required for withdrawal if the case is not at a critical point. (Ramirez, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at 915.) The only hearing on calendar in this case other than the hearing on this Motion is a Status Conference re: Status of Bankruptcy set for April 27, 2021. The Status Conference concerns the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Defendants Bastouras and Shenouda on December 8, 2017. The Court has not set dates for trial or a trial setting conference. The Court finds the case is not at a “critical point” such that withdrawal would be precluded; there is no reason to conclude withdrawal at this time would prejudice Plaintiffs in connection with the Status Conference. Therefore, withdrawal is permissible here even if Counsel had not made a showing of good cause.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Counsel to give notice and file a proof of service of this Order.


[1] Indeed, the filing of such a motion is itself a drastic step indicating the attorney does not want to continue representing the client. (Younger on California Motions § 17:16 (2d ed.) (“Does a judge require an attorney to represent a client against that attorney's will? . . . Except when a trial date is imminent, the answer is almost invariably ‘no.’ . . . [T]his is simply an untenable situation, whether the litigant realizes it or not.”))