This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 08:25:29 (UTC).

JOSE GUZMAN ET AL VS ROBERT LIPKIN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/13/2017 JOSE GUZMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ROBERT LIPKIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD E. RICO, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4721

  • Filing Date:

    06/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD E. RICO

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ROBERT L. HESS

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

TRES ESTRELLAS DE ORO INC

GUZMAN JOSE

TRES ESTRELLAS DE ORO INC.

Defendants and Respondents

LIPKIN REALTY LLC

DOES 1 TO 30

LIPKIN ROBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MARTIN CUAUHTEMOC V. ESQ.

CUAUHTEMOC V. MARTIN LAW OFFICES OF

MARTIN CUAUHTEMOC V

Defendant Attorneys

DANIEL P. TRIPPIEDI LAW OFFICES OF

FLOCK JOHN KEVIN

TRIPPIEDI DANIEL P

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

5/11/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

9/13/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

9/13/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel

1/10/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/10/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Minute Order

2/26/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

3/7/2019: Declaration

Declaration

3/7/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

3/12/2019: Minute Order

Notice

4/2/2019: Notice

Substitution of Attorney

5/2/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion for Protective Order

5/8/2019: Motion for Protective Order

Opposition

5/13/2019: Opposition

Opposition

5/13/2019: Opposition

Order

5/14/2019: Order

Ex Parte Application

5/14/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

5/14/2019: Minute Order

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/12/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 24; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketOrder (Order); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketOpposition ( to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketMotion for Protective Order; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Robert Lipkin (Defendant); Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 06/23/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-06-23 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • DocketPREEMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC. 170.6)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4721    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 24

Counsel Cuauhtemoc V. Martin, Esq., Esq.’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff Jose Guzman and Tres Estrellas De Oro Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Robert Lipkin and Lipkin Realty (“Defendants”). Defendants answered on December 7, 2017.

On February 26, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel Cuauhtemoc V. Martin, Esq. (“Counsel”) filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for both Plaintiffs. No opposition was filed.

Prior to the filing of this action, on January 9, 2017, Lipkin filed a contractual fraud suit against Guzman in an action entitled Lipkin v. Guzman, LASC Case no. BC646157 (“Lipkin Suit”). Counsel made an identical motion to be relieved as Guzman’s counsel in the Lipkin suit.

Legal Standard

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (CCP ; 284(2).) The attorney seeking to withdraw must take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, 3-700(A)(2). See, e.g., Vann v. Shilleh (1975) [holding withdrawal prejudicial where attorney withdraw from the representation of defendant on the Friday before trial began the following Monday].) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC, 3.1362(d).) When a client is served by mail, the attorney’s declaration must indicate that the client’s address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.) If the attorney is unable to confirm the client’s current address, the declaration must state the reasonable efforts made within the last 30 days to obtain the client’s current address. (Id.)

Additionally, the declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why” a motion is brought instead of filing a substitution of attorney. (CRC, 3.1362(c).)

Discussion

The Court finds that Counsel submits all the mandatory forms. Counsel states that an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship has occurred. Counsel indicates that has Plaintiffs have not cooperated with the investigation and preparation of the case. Counsel has served his clients by mail at his last known address, which was confirmed within the past 30 days by conversation. The declaration notes every hearing currently on calendar, the FSC, trial and their associated dates.

The Court finds that the client will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal since there are no dispositive motions pending and trial is not set until August.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TRES ESTRELLAS DE ORO INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TRIPPIEDI DANIEL P

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FLOCK JOHN. K.