Search

Attributes

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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD E. RICO

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ROBERT L. HESS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

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

Plaintiff and Petitioner 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

9/13/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/10/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Minute Order

3/12/2019: Minute Order

Notice

4/2/2019: Notice

Opposition

5/13/2019: Opposition

Order

5/14/2019: Order

Ex Parte Application

5/14/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

1/11/2018: Minute Order

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. RECISSION AND RESTITUTION 3. CONVERSION 4. FRAUD; ETC.

12/7/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. RECISSION AND RESTITUTION 3. CONVERSION 4. FRAUD; ETC.

Unknown

11/9/2017: Unknown

AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

11/15/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

10/11/2017: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

6/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

SUMMONS

6/13/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

8/16/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/16/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF CUAUHTEMOC V. MARTIN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

9/8/2017: DECLARATION OF CUAUHTEMOC V. MARTIN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Order (Order); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Opposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Opposition ( to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Motion for Protective Order; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Robert Lipkin (Defendant); Lipkin Realty LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 06/23/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-06-23 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC. 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Guzman (Plaintiff); Tres Estrellas De Oro, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

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 FLOCK JOHN. K.