JEANETTE ZACK ET AL VS OLIVIA MENDOZA

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Oliva Mendoza.  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On April 11, 2018, the Court entered default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 21, 2018, the Court set aside the April 11, 2018 entry of default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On January 16, 2020, the Court set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal of the complaint.

On June 25, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Danielle Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jeanette Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 3, 2020.  Later in the day on the 26th, the Court scheduled both the motions to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 2, 2020.

On November 2, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motions to February 4, 2021 in order to allow counsel for Plaintiffs to file amended moving papers to show proper service of the motions on Plaintiffs. 

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for March 19, 2021.

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs because a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship has arisen.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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 section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

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.)

DISCUSSION

As stated in the Court’s prior November 2, 2020 ruling on the motions, the Court finds the motions cannot be granted.  In both the motions, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC represent that the moving papers have been personally served on Plaintiffs.  However, the proofs of service filed with the Court on October 26, 2020 show the moving papers were served on Plaintiffs by U.S. mail.  The motions require that Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC declare that the address served by U.S. mail has been confirmed by a specified method within the thirty days prior to the date when the motions were filed.  Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC have not done so. 

On November 2, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on these motions in the interest of justice to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file amended moving papers.

The Court will continue the hearing on these motions once more to March 19, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file and serve amended moving papers. If the papers are not compliant by that hearing, the motion will be denied. 

CONCLUSION

The hearings on Justin Farahi’s and Farahi Law Firm, APC’s motions to be relieved as counsel are CONTINUED to March 19, 2021 at 8:30 p.m.

Counsel Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Oliva Mendoza.  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On April 11, 2018, the Court entered default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 21, 2018, the Court set aside the April 11, 2018 entry of default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On January 16, 2020, the Court set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal of the complaint.

On June 25, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Danielle Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jeanette Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 3, 2020.  Later in the day on the 26th, the Court scheduled both the motions to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 2, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for March 19, 2021.

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs because a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship has arisen.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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 section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

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.)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds the motions cannot be granted.  In both the motions, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC represent that the moving papers have been personally served on Plaintiffs.  However, the proofs of service filed with the Court on October 26, 2020 show the moving papers were served on Plaintiffs by U.S. mail.  The motions require that Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC declare that the address served by U.S. mail has been confirmed by a specified method within the thirty days prior to the date when the motions were filed.  Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC have not done so.  As such, the Court cannot grant the motions.

The Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue the hearings on these motions in order to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file amended moving papers.

CONCLUSION

The hearings on Justin Farahi’s and Farahi Law Firm, APC’s motions to be relieved as counsel are CONTINUED to February 4, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Olivia Mendoza (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On December 18, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the November 26, 2019 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal on the ground that Defendant’s counsel did not have Plaintiffs’ authority to file the request for dismissal.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part, “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. . . . However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California. . . .”

DISCUSSION

The motion was filed on December 18, 2019.  It was served on Plaintiffs on December 18, 2019 by U.S. mail.  Sixteen court-days plus five regular days after December 18, 2019 is January 21, 2020.  As such, insufficient notice of this motion was given to Plaintiffs.

The hearing on Defendant’s motion to set aside is CONTINUED to January 29, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Plaintiffs may file an opposition by 11:59 p.m. on January 21, 2020.

Defendant may file a reply by 11:59 p.m. on January 23, 2020.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.