This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2019 at 02:34:48 (UTC).

ROOKE CORP VS FLARE GROUP ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/02/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by ROOKE CORP against FLARE GROUP in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0667

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2018

  • 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

BARBARA A. MEIERS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ROOKE CORP

Defendants and Respondents

FLARE HOLDINGS LLC

TAN PENG

TAN SHAUN

TAN ENG

FLARE GROUP CORPORATION

FLARE GROUP INC.

 

Court Documents

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUCIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV PROC., ? 170.6)

4/13/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUCIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV PROC., ? 170.6)

Minute Order

4/19/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/12/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

4/2/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT

4/2/2018: COMPLAINT

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Reply (to Opposition to Demurrer); Filed by Flare Group (Defendant); Flare Holdings LLC (Defendant); Eng Tan (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Objection (of Rooke Corp. to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice); Filed by Rooke Corp (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Opposition (of Rooke Corp.'s to Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Complaint); Filed by Rooke Corp (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by Flare Group (Defendant); Flare Holdings LLC (Defendant); Eng Tan (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Flare Group (Defendant); Flare Holdings LLC (Defendant); Eng Tan (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
123 More Docket Entries
  • 04/19/2018
  • at 00:00 AM in Department 12; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Transferred to different departmnt) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUCIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Rooke Corp (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Rooke Corp (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700667    Hearing Date: December 31, 2019    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROOKE CORP, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLARE GROUP, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC700667

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Date: December 31, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: March 2, 2020

Jury Trial: March 16, 2020

Michael H. Raichelson and the Law Offices of Michael H. Raichelson seek to be relieved as counsel for: (1) Defendant Peng Tan (“Tan”); (2) Defendant Flare Holdings LLC (“Flare Holdings”); (3) Defendant Flare Group, Inc. (“Flare Group”) and filed separate motions to be relieved as counsel as to Tan, Flare Holdings, and Flare Group. The Court will address the motions to be relieved as counsel in this one ruling. All motions are compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR TAN

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel as to Tan, Michael H. Raichelson declares that: (1) a conflict or conflicts have arisen between himself and Mr. Shaun Tan and the other Defendants; (2) the relationship has broken down and Mr. Shaun Tan is no longer communicating effectively notwithstanding his numerous texts, emails, and telephone calls; (3) he was his primary contact between all of the Defendants including Tan; (4) approximately seven weeks ago, he requested that Defendants retain new counsel and with the exception of Mr. Shaun Tan, no new counsel has been retained even though it has been represented to him that new counsel would be retained; (5) new counsel has executed substitutions of attorneys for all Defendants including Tan, however, with the exception of Mr. Shaun Tan, none have been signed by Tan despite his requests; and (6) no party will suffer prejudice in that discovery is almost complete and Tan has known for almost two months the need for new counsel.

The Court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel with respect to Tan.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR FLARE HOLDINGS

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Holdings, Michael H. Raichelson declares that: (1) a conflict or conflicts have arisen between himself and Mr. Shaun Tan which de facto impacts Flare Holdings; (2) the relationship has broken down and Mr. Shaun Tan is no longer communicating effectively notwithstanding his numerous texts, emails, and telephone calls; (3) Mr. Shaun Tan was his primary contact between all of the Defendants; (4) approximately seven weeks ago, he requested that Defendants retain new counsel but no new counsel has been retained even though it has been represented to him that new counsel would be retained; (5) new counsel has executed substitutions of attorneys for all Defendants, however, none have been signed by Defendants despite his numerous requests; and (6) no party will suffer prejudice in that discovery is completed and Defendants have known for almost two months that new counsel would be required.

The Court incorporates its discussion of the law with respect to a motion to be relieved as counsel from above and applies it to Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Holdings.

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel with respect to Flare Holdings.

The Court notes, however, that as a limited liability company, Flare Holdings is not a natural person. As such, Flare Holdings cannot appear in this case without an attorney because “a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.)

For that reason, moving party is to notify Flare Holdings of this fact, and of the setting on the Court’s own motion of an OSC re striking answer for February 4, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., and that Flare Holding’s answer will be stricken at that time if it has not retained new counsel and submitted a substitution of attorney form at or before that time.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR FLARE GROUP

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Group, Michael H. Raichelson declares that: (1) a conflict or conflicts have arisen between himself and Mr. Shaun Tan; (2) the relationship has broken down and Mr. Shaun Tan is no longer communicating effectively notwithstanding his numerous texts, emails, and telephone calls; (3) approximately six weeks ago, he requested that Defendants retain new counsel but no new counsel has been retained even though it has been represented to him that new counsel would be retained; (4) new counsel has executed a substitution of attorney and he advised Mr. Tan on multiple occasions that if he did not receive the executed substitution returned immediately, the instant motion would be required; (5) his failure to respond is symbolic of their ability to communicate; and (6) Mr. Tan has been aware of this issue for at least six weeks and for unknown reasons is refusing to sign the substitution of attorney.

The Court incorporates its discussion of the law with respect to a motion to be relieved as counsel from above and applies it to Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Group.

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel with respect to Flare Group.

The Court notes, however, that as a corporation, Flare Group is not a natural person. As such, Flare Group cannot appear in this case without an attorney because “a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.)

For that reason, moving party is to notify Flare Group of this fact, and of the setting on the Court’s own motion of an OSC re striking answer for February 4, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., and that Flare Group’s answer will be stricken at that time if it has not retained new counsel and submitted a substitution of attorney form at or before that time.

Michael H. Raichelson is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 31st day of December 2019

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC700667    Hearing Date: December 30, 2019    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROOKE CORP, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLARE GROUP, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC700667

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Date: December 30, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: March 2, 2020

Jury Trial: March 16, 2020

Michael H. Raichelson and the Law Offices of Michael H. Raichelson seek to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Peng Tan (“Tan”) and Defendant Flare Holdings LLC (“Flare Holdings”) and filed two separate motions to be relieved as counsel as to Tan and Flare Holdings. The Court will address both motions to be relieved as counsel in this one ruling. Both motions are compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR TAN

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel as to Tan, Michael H. Raichelson declares that: (1) a conflict or conflicts have arisen between himself and Mr. Shaun Tan and the other Defendants; (2) the relationship has broken down and Mr. Shaun Tan is no longer communicating effectively notwithstanding his numerous texts, emails, and telephone calls; (3) he was his primary contact between all of the Defendants including Tan; (4) approximately seven weeks ago, he requested that Defendants retain new counsel and with the exception of Mr. Shaun Tan, no new counsel has been retained even though it has been represented to him that new counsel would be retained; (5) new counsel has executed substitutions of attorneys for all Defendants including Tan, however, with the exception of Mr. Shaun Tan, none have been signed by Tan despite his requests; and (6) no party will suffer prejudice in that discovery is almost complete and Tan has known for almost two months the need for new counsel.

The Court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel with respect to Tan.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR FLARE HOLDINGS

In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Holdings, Michael H. Raichelson declares that: (1) a conflict or conflicts have arisen between himself and Mr. Shaun Tan which de facto impacts Flare Holdings; (2) the relationship has broken down and Mr. Shaun Tan is no longer communicating effectively notwithstanding his numerous texts, emails, and telephone calls; (3) Mr. Shaun Tan was his primary contact between all of the Defendants; (4) approximately seven weeks ago, he requested that Defendants retain new counsel but no new counsel has been retained even though it has been represented to him that new counsel would be retained; (5) new counsel has executed substitutions of attorneys for all Defendants, however, none have been signed by Defendants despite his numerous requests; and (6) no party will suffer prejudice in that discovery is completed and Defendants have known for almost two months that new counsel would be required.

The Court incorporates its discussion of the law with respect to a motion to be relieved as counsel from above and applies it to Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Flare Holdings.

In light of the facts above, the Court GRANTS Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel with respect to Flare Holdings.

The Court notes, however, that as a limited liability company, Flare Holdings is not a natural person. As such, Flare Holdings cannot appear in this case without an attorney because “a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.)

For that reason, moving party is to notify Flare Holdings of this fact, and of the setting on the Court’s own motion of an OSC re striking answer for February 4, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., and that Flare Holding’s answer will be stricken at that time if it has not retained new counsel and submitted a substitution of attorney form at or before that time.

Michael H. Raichelson is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 30th day of December 2019

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC700667    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROOKE CORP., etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLARE GROUP, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC700667

ORDER RE:

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Date: December 3, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Michael H. Raichelson/Law Offices of Michael H. Raichelson

On the Court’s own motion, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Flare Group, Inc., et al. scheduled for 12/17/2019 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 12/31/2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56 so that the Court can further consider Michael H. Raichelson’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

Michael H. Raichelson is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Dated this 3rd day of December 2019

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court