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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RICHARD E. RICO
HOLLY E. KENDIG
ROBERT L. HESS
TRES ESTRELLAS DE ORO INC
TRES ESTRELLAS DE ORO INC.
LIPKIN REALTY LLC
DOES 1 TO 30
MARTIN CUAUHTEMOC V. ESQ.
CUAUHTEMOC V. MARTIN LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN CUAUHTEMOC V
DANIEL P. TRIPPIEDI LAW OFFICES OF
FLOCK JOHN KEVIN
TRIPPIEDI DANIEL P
9/13/2018: Minute Order
1/10/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery
3/12/2019: Minute Order
5/14/2019: Ex Parte Application
1/11/2018: Minute Order
12/7/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. RECISSION AND RESTITUTION 3. CONVERSION 4. FRAUD; ETC.
11/15/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
10/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/11/2017: Minute Order
6/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
8/16/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/8/2017: DECLARATION OF CUAUHTEMOC V. MARTIN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
at 10:00 AM in Department 24; Jury Trial - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Order (Order); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Opposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition ( to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Protective Order; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Robert Lipkin (Defendant); Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-06-23 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC. 170.6)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC664721 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.
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).)
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases