On 02/10/2017 NORMA OCHOA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AMBER NICOLE HUEZO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****9559
02/10/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
ROMERO DALIA
ROMERO SAUL
ROMERO KEVIN
OCHOA NORMA
ROMERO VICTORIA
HUEZO AMBER NICOLE
DOES 1 TO 100
GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.
ABDOLHOSSEINI TINA H.
ALFARO MEYLIN PATRICIA
ANDRADE ALVIN R. ESQ.
5/22/2018: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY
6/1/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL
6/29/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL
11/15/2018: Minute Order
3/4/2019: Motion for Leave
4/2/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/3/2019: Motion in Limine
5/22/2019: Motion for Leave
5/22/2019: Opposition
5/23/2019: Ex Parte Application
2/10/2017: CoverSheet
2/10/2017: CoverSheet
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial) - Held
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial)); Filed by Clerk
Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Reply (Plaintiff Norma Ochoa and Saul Romero's Reply to Opposition to Continue Trial; Declaration of Michael B. Geoola); Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff)
Opposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial; Declaration of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Motion for Leave (Motion for Leave to Submit Tardy Expert Information); Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff)
Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Preclude Prohibit Evidence Of Medical Expenses Other Than The Rate Negotiated By Plaintiffs Insurance Company Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Motion in Limine (Motion in Limine Number 1 for Order Precluding Plaintiffs from Preconditioning the Jury); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 4 To Exclude Preclude Prohibit Plaintiffs Use Of Or Argument Regarding The Golden Rule Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 5 To Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Defendant's Liability Insurance Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL
NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
[PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT AMBER NICOLE HUEZO;AND ETC.
Answer; Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)
Complaint; Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff); Victoria Romero (Plaintiff) et al.
Complaint
Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Case Number: BC649559 Hearing Date: March 10, 2020 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
NORMA OCHOA, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. AMBER HUEZO, ET AL., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO: BC649559 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. March 10, 2020 |
Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only (Counsel does not seek to be relieved as counsel for the remaining plaintiffs, who have settled), contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff’s address. The Court previously denied a similar motion to be relieved because there was no proof of service of the proposed order on the motion, and also because the trial date was set unreasonably close to the hearing date on the motion to be relieved.
Counsel has now filed proof of service of all moving papers on Romero and Defendant. Counsel also had the trial date continued to 5/13/20. In light of the lack of opposition, the motion to be relieved is granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order granting the motion on Plaintiff, Romero.
Counsel is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2020
|
|
|
|
Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |
Case Number: BC649559 Hearing Date: February 10, 2020 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
NORMA OCHOA, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. AMBER HUEZO, ET AL., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO: BC649559 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. February 10, 2020 |
Plaintiffs’ attorney previously moved to be relieved as counsel for each of the two plaintiffs, Norma Ochoa and Saul Romero. The Court denied the motions for two reasons. First, the Court found that Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3). Second, the Court noted that trial was scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions.
On 1/16/20, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only. The motion is denied. Once again, Counsel failed to submit a proposed order on the motion with proof of service of same. Additionally, Counsel failed to file the mandatory judicial council form declaration on Form MC-052. Absent these documents, the Court cannot grant the relief sought.
Counsel is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.
Case Number: BC649559 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
NORMA OCHOA, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. AMBER HUEZO, ET AL., Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO: BC649559 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. January 9, 2020 |
Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiffs’ address. The motion is denied for two reasons. First, Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3).
Second, trial is scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions. Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.
Counsel is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.