This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 04:47:29 (UTC).

IGNAT STEPANENKO VS JOHN ROE DDS ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/21/2017 a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice case was filed by IGNAT STEPANENKO against JOHN ROE DDS in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7212

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STEPANENKO IGNAT

Defendants and Respondents

ROE DDS; JOHN

A TO Z DENTAL CLINIC

DOES 1-100

 

Court Documents

CoverSheet

12/21/2017: CoverSheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

12/21/2017: Summons

Complaint

12/21/2017: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/17/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Ignat Stepanenko (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ignat Stepanenko (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC687212    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

IGNAT STEPANENKO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOHN ROE, DDS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC687212

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING COUNSEL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 6, 2020

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Richard M. Katz, seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff’s address, within the past thirty days, by telephone. Counsel’s more specific declaration, however, details numerous attempts to contact Plaintiff during the thirty days prior to filing the motion, and consistently indicates that Plaintiff did not answer his phone and did not return the phone calls. Counsel must appear and clarify this discrepancy if he wishes to have the motion granted.

If the motion is granted, the relief will be effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Plaintiff.

The Court notes that trial is scheduled on 4/29/20, and encourages Plaintiff to retain a new attorney quickly if he wishes to protect his interest in the litigation.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.