This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/18/2019 at 00:17:54 (UTC).

DR ELLIE KAUCHER VS PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 DR ELLIE KAUCHER filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9890

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY E. KENDIG

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KAUCHER ELLIE DR.

Defendants and Respondents

PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY

CHRISTOPHER RANDY

TAO ERIC DR.

MONTGOMERY FAYE

DOES 1 TO 50

MOLOYAN KRIKOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SOLOMON STEPHEN WARREN ESQ.

ZENJIRYAN ARMEN

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

GALVAN JULISSA M.

 

Court Documents

Opposition

8/14/2019: Opposition

Reply

8/20/2019: Reply

Exhibit List

8/22/2019: Exhibit List

Minute Order

9/4/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

7/15/2019: Declaration

Reply

7/31/2019: Reply

Motion in Limine

8/2/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

8/2/2019: Motion in Limine

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

3/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Brief

2/1/2019: Brief

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

2/19/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order

7/26/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF LIEN

6/20/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN

DEFENDANTS DR. ERIC TAO, FAYE MONTGOMERY, RANDY CHRISTOPHER AND KRIKOR MOLOYAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

5/24/2018: DEFENDANTS DR. ERIC TAO, FAYE MONTGOMERY, RANDY CHRISTOPHER AND KRIKOR MOLOYAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DR. ERIC TAO, KRIKOR MOLOYAN, FAYE MONTGOMERY AND RANDY CHRISTOPHER

5/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DR. ERIC TAO, KRIKOR MOLOYAN, FAYE MONTGOMERY AND RANDY CHRISTOPHER

NOTICE OF RULING

4/23/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Proof of Service

4/2/2018: Proof of Service

74 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/24/2020
  • Hearing02/24/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Ellie, Dr. Kaucher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketWitness List (JOINT WITNESS LIST); Filed by Phillips Graduate University (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketStipulation - No Order ([PROPOSED] STIPULATION OF FACTS); Filed by Phillips Graduate University (Defendant); Eric, Dr. Tao (Defendant); Faye Montgomery (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
108 More Docket Entries
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., SECTION 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Ellie, Dr. Kaucher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Ellie, Dr. Kaucher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketProof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ellie, Dr. Kaucher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ellie, Dr. Kaucher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION - VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 11O2.5 ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699890    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DR. ELLIE KAUCHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PHILLIPS GRADUATE UNIVERSITY, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC699890

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Date: June 29, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: October 20, 2020

Jury Trial: October 26, 2020

MOVING PARTIES: Andranik Tsarukyan (“Tsarukyan”) and Armen Zenjiryan (“Zenjiryan”); Lawrance A. Bohm (“Bohm”) and Kelsey K. Ciarimboli (“Ciarimboli”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Dr. Ellie Kaucher

BACKGROUND

Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and filed a motion to be relieved as counsel on March 2, 2020. Bohm and Ciarimboli also seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and filed a motion to be relieved as counsel on March 2, 2020. The Court will address the respective motions to be relieved as counsel in this one ruling. Both motions are compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Plaintiff filed objections to both motions to be relieved as counsel.

MOTION FILED BY TSARUKYAN AND ZENJIRYAN

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel, Zenjiryan declares that: (1) Plaintiff did not voluntarily consent to counsel’s request to be relieved; (2) the specific facts which give rise to this motion are required to be kept confidential pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 6068(e), California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-100(A), and by the attorney-client privilege; (3) in the event the Court desires further information to ascertain the good faith basis of the motion for withdrawal, it is requested that the Court have an in camera hearing outside the presence of all other parties so that the specific facts demonstrating good cause for the withdrawal may be demonstrated to the Court; and (4) irreconcilable differences have arisen between Plaintiff and counsel making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively.

Plaintiff’s Objection

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan’s motion to be relieved as counsel using form CIV-152. At the bottom of Plaintiff’s CIV-152 form there is a notice that states “[i]f you object to your attorney’s Application to Be Relieved as Attorney on Completion of Limited Scope Representation (form CIV-151), you must file this objection with the clerk of the court where the application was filed within 20 days of the day that the application was put in the mail to you. If you were personally served, you have to file this form 15 days from the day you were served.”

In her objection, Plaintiff declares that: (1) at this juncture, she has no objection to withdrawal of the Remedy Law Group; (2) the continuous potential mishandling of her case including, but not limited to, an unreasonable lien on her case for attorney fees and costs, failing to resolve her case through global mediation, which is the only solution due to their broken relationship with Bohm, and lack of Remedy’s due diligence during the discovery period; (3) as a result of Remedy’s action and/or lack of appropriate, timely action, duty of loyalty and care, and knowledge, her case is not only being potentially debunked and abandoned; and (4) she has contacted over two dozen attorneys and no other attorneys will take her case due to Remedy Law Group’s lien and potential mishap.

Analysis

The Court finds that Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan did not file an Application to Be Relieved as Attorney on Completion of Limited Scope Representation using form CIV-151. Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan filed a motion to be relieved as counsel using forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Plaintiff was served with the motion to be relieved as counsel on March 2, 2020 via overnight mail. Plaintiff did not file her objection until June 9, 2020. Even if Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan’s motion could be construed as an application to be relieved as attorney on completion of limited scope representation—which it is not—the objection would be late pursuant to the notice language at the bottom of Plaintiff’s CIV-152 form.

Irrespective of the procedural irregularity which constitutes Plaintiff’s objection, Plaintiff unequivocally stated in her objection that she has no objection to Remedy Law Group withdrawing from this action. Both Zenjiryan and Tsarukayn are attorneys at Remedy Law Group. Trial in this action is set to commence on October 26, 2020.

The Court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) The Court finds that no prejudice will result to the client from allowing a withdrawal to which she has consented.

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.

Tsarukyan and Zenjiryan are ordered to give notice of this ruling with respect to their motion to be relieved as counsel.

MOTION FILED BY BOHM AND CIARIMBOLI

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel, Ciarimboli declares that: (1) Plaintiff did not voluntarily consent to counsel’s request to be relieved; (2) the specific facts which give rise to this motion are required to be kept confidential pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 6068(e), California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-100(A), and by the attorney-client privilege; (3) in the event the Court desires further information to ascertain the good faith basis of the motion for withdrawal, it is requested that the Court have an in camera hearing outside the presence of all other parties so that the specific facts demonstrating good cause for the withdrawal may be demonstrated to the Court; (4) permissible withdrawal is supported by California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.16(b)(4) and 1.16(b)(5); and (5) counsel will provide the Court with additional details at the hearing on this matter and asks that such information be related off-record and in chambers.

Plaintiff’s Objection

On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to Bohm and Ciarimboli’s motion to be relieved as counsel using form CIV-152. At the bottom of Plaintiff’s CIV-152 form there is a notice that states “[i]f you object to your attorney’s Application to Be Relieved as Attorney on Completion of Limited Scope Representation (form CIV-151), you must file this objection with the clerk of the court where the application was filed within 20 days of the day that the application was put in the mail to you. If you were personally served, you have to file this form 15 days from the day you were served.”

In her objection, Plaintiff declares that: (1) Mr. Bohm’s law group agreed to represent her as first chair during the trial originally scheduled on February 24, 2020 and associated into her case in or about August 2019; (2) she was told that Mr. Bohm would provide needed resources, expertise, and knowledge to prepare and try the case as it was going toward trial; (3) based on the amended attorney-client retainer, Mr. Bohm has not completed the agreement, not based on any change of facts or wrongdoing on her part, but due to a loss of all confidence in the working relationship with Remedy Law Group; and (4) withdrawing representation at this late juncture will abandon her case and prevent her from the opportunity of vindication and a fair trial by an experienced attorney such as Lawrance Bohm.

Analysis

The Court finds that Bohm and Ciarimboli did not file an Application to Be Relieved as Attorney on Completion of Limited Scope Representation using form CIV-151. Bohm and Ciarimboli filed a motion to be relieved as counsel using forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Plaintiff was served with the motion to be relieved as counsel on March 2, 2020 via overnight mail. Plaintiff did not file her objection until June 9, 2020. Even if Bohm and Ciarimboli’s motion could be construed as an application to be relieved as attorney on completion of limited scope representation—which it is not—the objection would be late pursuant to the notice language at the bottom of Plaintiff’s CIV-152 form. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection is a procedural irregularity.

The Court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Trial in this matter is set to commence on October 26, 2020. The Court fails to see how Bohm and Ciarimboli withdrawing from this action will prejudice client given that trial is approximately four months from now.

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Bohm and Ciarimboli’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff CONTINGENT on Ciarmboli and Bohm providing the specific facts giving rise to their motion. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, as indicated below, and Bohm and Ciarmiboli’s willingness to provide facts giving rise to their motion, the Court encourages the parties to appear via CourtCall. Bohm and Ciarimboli may provide the specific facts giving rise to their motion to be relieved as counsel off the record via CourtCall.

Bohm and Ciarimboli are ordered to give notice of this ruling with respect to their motion to be relieved as counsel.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by CourtCall if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 29th day of June 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court