On 01/09/2018 JENNIFER CHAN filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against GREAT EASTERN COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are OKI, DAN THOMAS, DAN THOMAS OKI and GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****9942
01/09/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
OKI, DAN THOMAS
DAN THOMAS OKI
GLORIA WHITE-BROWN
CHAN JENNIFER
COUNTY RECORDS RESEARCH INC
GREAT EASTERN COMPANY
AH LAY TIOW
TIOW AH LAY
COUNTY RECORDS RESEARCH INC.
TIOW AH LAY DBA GREAT EASTERN COMPANY
REIN STEVEN
KORECHOFF ESQ. VICTOR
KORECHOFF VICTOR STEVEN
WELCH SARA IONE
WELCH SARA I
10/21/2020: Order - ORDER TENTATIVE RULING
10/29/2020: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
10/21/2020: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
8/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
8/9/2019: Order - ORDER TENTATIVE RULING
5/29/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF STEVEN REIN PER COURT'S RULING OF MAY 2, 2019 AND CRC RULE 3.324(A)
5/13/2019: Substitution of Attorney
5/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOT...)
1/9/2018: Complaint
1/9/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
6/5/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
3/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;)
6/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-06-27 00:00:00
12/12/2018: Order - Order Tentative Ruling
7/26/2018: Case Management Statement -
11/21/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5); Ca...)
10/16/2018: Supplemental Declaration - Supplemental Declaration in support of motion to set aside default
7/18/2018: Notice of Motion -
Hearing04/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department J at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Trial Setting Conference
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((2-3 day estimate)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial (2-3 day estimate))); Filed by Clerk
DocketProof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted
DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk
DocketOrder (Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((2-3 day estimate)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
DocketNotice (Notice of Ruling); Filed by Jennifer Chan (Cross-Defendant)
DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Ah Lay Tiow (Cross-Complainant)
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Plaintiff
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk
DocketSummons (on Complaint)
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Jennifer Chan (Plaintiff)
Case Number: KC069942 Hearing Date: October 21, 2020 Dept: J
HEARING DATE: day, October 21, 2020
NOTICE: See below[1]
RE: Chan v. Great Eastern Company, et al. (KC069942)
______________________________________________________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 9/19/20, 9:11 a.m.; due 9/18/20)
Tentative Ruling
Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff filing a corrected
proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice of the motion
and effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon
the Client.
Background
This is a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit involving Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (“Plaintiff”) residential property located at 2145 Wind River Lane in Rowland Heights.
On February 26, 2018, Ah Lay Tiow dba Great Eastern Company (erroneously sued as Great Eastern Company) (“Great Eastern”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Plaintiff and Does 1-25 for:
Breach of Contract
Fraud
On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of against Defendants Great Eastern, County Records Research, Inc. (“CRRI”) and Does 1-25 for:
Wrongful Foreclosure
Negligent Loan Servicing
Trial is set for March 8, 2021.
Discussion
Notice
The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).
The following ruling, then, is contingent upon moving counsel filing a corrected proof of service, at or before the date and time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice:
Merits
The Law Offices of Steven Rein (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff
(“Client”).
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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion 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 § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under 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) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.
Attorney Steven Rein (“Rein”) of Firm states in his declaration as follows: “There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as a result of which attorney can no longer represent plaintiff, the nature and extent of which is within the attorney/client privilege.” Rein also notes that “COVID 19 has substantially negatively impacted [his] ability to handle this case, with [his] office being in Simi Valley, nearly 100 miles from Pomona.”
Rein states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by telephone.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above
have been sufficiently met. Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the
proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client.
Case Number: KC069942 Hearing Date: October 01, 2020 Dept: J
HEARING DATE: Thursday, October 1, 2020
NOTICE: See below[1]
RE: Chan v. Great Eastern Company, et al. (KC069942)
______________________________________________________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 9/19/20, 9:11 a.m.; due 9/18/20)
Tentative Ruling
Counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (i.e., Law Offices of Steven Rein) Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff filing a corrected
proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice of the motion
and effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon
the Client.
Background
This is a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit involving Plaintiff Jennifer Chan’s (“Plaintiff”) residential property located at 2145 Wind River Lane in Rowland Heights.
On February 26, 2018, Ah Lay Tiow dba Great Eastern Company (erroneously sued as Great Eastern Company) (“Great Eastern”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against Plaintiff and Does 1-25 for:
Breach of Contract
Fraud
On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of against Defendants Great Eastern, County Records Research, Inc. (“CRRI”) and Does 1-25 for:
Wrongful Foreclosure
Negligent Loan Servicing
Trial is set for March 8, 2021.
Discussion
Notice
The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).
The following ruling, then, is contingent upon moving counsel filing a corrected proof of service, at or before the date and time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) compliant notice:
Merits
The Law Offices of Steven Rein (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff
(“Client”).
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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion 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 § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under 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) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.
Attorney Steven Rein (“Rein”) of Firm states in his declaration as follows: “There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship as a result of which attorney can no longer represent plaintiff, the nature and extent of which is within the attorney/client privilege.” Rein also notes that “COVID 19 has substantially negatively impacted [his] ability to handle this case, with [his] office being in Simi Valley, nearly 100 miles from Pomona.”
Rein states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, by telephone.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above
have been sufficiently met. Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the
proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client.
[1] The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases