This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 04:54:18 (UTC).

TERESA TORRES VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/21/2017 TERESA TORRES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6757

  • Filing Date:

    09/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TORRES TERESA

Defendants and Respondents

FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC

FOOD 4 LESS

THE KROGER CO.

DOES 1 TO 25

FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA DBA FOOD 4 LESS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

HAKIM SHARONA ESLAMBOLY ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

D'ORO FRANK JOSEPH JR

 

Court Documents

ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

9/5/2018: ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

Stipulation and Order

3/15/2019: Stipulation and Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Unknown

8/14/2018: Unknown

SUMMONS

9/21/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

9/21/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation of Dismissal between Defendant The Kroger Co. and Plaintiff Teresa Torres; Proposed Order); Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Order (Proposed Order and Stipulation to Continue trial FSC and related motion/discovery dates personal injury courts only); Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • Answer; Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant); FOOD 4 LESS, (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676757    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Teresa Torres filed a complaint against Defendants Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less and The Kroger Co. for premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 28, 2015.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

On October 31, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s counsel motion to be relieved as counsel to allow time for seeking a trial continuance on an ex parte basis.

Trial is now set for June 3, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, seeks a court order relieving it as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres in this matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

Counsel has submitted forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 in seeking to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres.

Counsel states in the declaration that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship to the extent that continued representation is impossible.  Counsel further declares that attorney-client communications have broken down.

Counsel has served the operative notice of motion, motion and declaration on Plaintiff and Defendant by U.S. mail.  Counsel has confirmed Plaintiff’s last known address within the past thirty days by telephone, conversation, and in person at counsel’s office.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The Court has not been presented with any facts showing that Plaintiff would be prejudiced or that the orderly process of justice would be disrupted if the motion is granted.  Trial is more than six months

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, is relieved as counsel for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel–Civil form MC–053.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC676757    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Teresa Torres filed a complaint against Defendants Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less and The Kroger Co. for premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 28, 2015.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Trial is set for December 3, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, seeks a court order relieving it as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres in this matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted¿when¿there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process¿of justice.¿ (See¿Ramirez v.¿Sturdevant¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915;¿People v. Prince¿(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)¿¿

California Rule of Court,¿rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil¿form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil¿form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil¿form (MC-053)).¿¿

The¿court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted¿provided that¿there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.¿¿(See¿Ramirez v.¿Sturdevant¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)¿¿¿

DISCUSSION

Counsel has submitted forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 in seeking to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres.

Counsel states in the declaration that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship to the extent that continued representation is impossible.  Counsel further declares that attorney-client communications have broken down.

Counsel has served the operative notice of motion, motion and declaration on Plaintiff and Defendant by U.S. mail.  Counsel has confirmed Plaintiff’s last known address within the past thirty days by telephone, conversation, and in person at counsel’s office.

While the Court is inclined to grant the motion, the Court notes that items 3 and 6 of the proposed order (MC-053) are incomplete.

Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED TO November 22, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., unless Counsel brings a completed proposed order (MC-053) to the hearing.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.