On 11/03/2017 RUFINO ESPERON filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against EXCELA CREATIVE, LLC, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****8329
11/03/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NANCY L. NEWMAN
ESPERON RUFINO
RANGER ASHLEY
EXCELA CREATIVE LLC
HUTCHISON DEXTER
RANGER ASHELY
KRUGER JACKIE ROSE
BLANK ROME LLP
DONELAN CAROLINE POWELL
3/2/2020: Notice of Ruling
2/19/2020: Notice of Settlement
1/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENSE COUNSEL, CAROLINE DONELAN/CAITLIN SANDERS'...)
8/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL)
2/11/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR INF
8/20/2019: Answer
11/3/2017: Complaint
12/27/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
12/27/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
8/14/2018: Reply - To Opposition to Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
8/28/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-28 00:00:00
11/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
12/17/2018: Notice - Notice of unavailability of counsel The Kruger Law Firm from 12-19-18-1-2-19
2/1/2019: Declaration - Declaration DECLARATION OF CAITLIN I. SANDERS RE: GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(a)(2)
2/8/2019: Notice - Notice STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT
5/14/2019: Request - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DUE TO COUNSEL MEDICAL EMERGENCY
5/14/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL
5/24/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk
DocketJudgment (- Stipulated Judgment - Before Trial - 09/23/2020 entered for Plaintiff ESPERON, RUFINO; Plaintiff ESPERON, RUFINO against Defendant Dexter Hutchison; Defendant Ashley Ranger; Defendant Excela Creative, LLC.); Filed by Clerk
DocketJudgment (Judgment); Filed by RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff); RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held - Continued
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk
DocketStipulation and Order; Filed by Stipulated by all Parties
DocketStipulation and Order (TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT ); Filed by Stipulated by all Parties
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint; Filed by RUFINO ESPERON (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint Filed
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff
Case Number: SC128329 Hearing Date: January 14, 2020 Dept: P
Rufino Esperon v. Excela Creative, LLC et al. Case No. SC128329
Defense Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Hearing Date January 14, 2020 UNOPPOSED
TENTATIVE RULING
Caitlin Sanders, Esq. moves to be relieved as counsel for defendants Excela Creative, LLC, Dexter Hutchison, and Ashely Ranger. This motion is not opposed.
The notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order are on the appropriate Judicial Council forms and addressed to the client. CRC, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e). The declaration indicates defendants were served by mail, and counsel confirmed defendants’ address by email.
The “determination of 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, 1133-1134 (quoting Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592). Situations where courts deny a motion to withdraw as counsel generally involve a request by counsel that is too close to trial or situations where the attorney does not properly explain the basis for the request to withdraw. E.g. People v. Brown (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341.
Jury trial is scheduled for March 2, 2020. It is unlikely defendants would be able to retain counsel before trial. Counsel argues the motion should be granted because “there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that continued representation is not possible.” Given the possible prejudice to defendants, the court requires more specificity before the motion can be granted. The court does note defendants do not oppose the motion. Counsel will be given an opportunity to appear in camera outside the presence of the other parties to explain the facts establishing good cause for withdrawal.