This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 00:55:15 (UTC).

ROBERT LIPKIN VS JOSE GUZMAN

Case Summary

On 01/09/2017 ROBERT LIPKIN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOSE GUZMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6157

  • Filing Date:

    01/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LIPKIN ROBERT

Defendant

GUZMAN JOSE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

TRIPPIEDI DANIEL P

HYMAN ANDREW W

Defendant Attorney

MARTIN CUAUHTEMOC V ESQ.

 

Court Documents

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

Association of Attorney

10/16/2018: Association of Attorney

Declaration

2/15/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

2/26/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/12/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/14/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/14/2019: Minute Order

Order

5/14/2019: Order

Ex Parte Application

5/14/2019: Ex Parte Application

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/30/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 10:35 AM in Department 24; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    [+] 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
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date); Filed by Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketOrder (Order); Filed by Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:33 AM in Department 24; Non-Appearance Case Review (Plaintiff's Report re Settlement) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketApplication for Order to Publish; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Robert Lipkin (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/11/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF RORERT LIPKIN; DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. TRIPPIEDI

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Robert Lipkin (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6157    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 24

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

On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff Robert Lipkin (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant contract fraud lawsuit against Defendant Jose Guzman (“Defendant”). Defendant answered on September 21, 2017.

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

In a related action, Guzman and Tres Estrellas De Oro Inc. filed a separate lawsuit against Lipkin and Lipkin Realty entitled Guzman v. Lipkin, LASC Case no. BC664721 (“Guzman Suit”). Counsel made an identical motion to be relieved as Guzman’s counsel in the Guzman 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 Defendant has 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 represented by Lawyer TRIPPIEDI DANIEL P

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HYMAN, ANDREW W.