Case Number: BC676603 Hearing Date: April 27, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Julieta Avalos, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Merona Enterprises Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC676603

Hearing Date: April 27, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel, Hussein H. Saleh (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel.

Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel on April 10, 2018. The hearing on this motion is set for April 27, 2018. The motion was not timely filed. Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) provides in relevant part that “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing . . . However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California.” As the instant motion was served by mail, the latest that the motion, declaration, and proposed order could have been timely served was March 31, 2018. The proof of service reflects that the motion was not served until April 10, 2018. As such, the motion is untimely.

The notice is defective for another reason. Under CRC Rule 3.1362(d), the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must all be served on the client. Here, the proof of service reflects service only of the notice of motion and motion and the declaration. There is no indication that Counsel ever served the proposed order on the client.

Defendant has filed an opposition to this motion on grounds that Defendant was not served with sufficient notice under CCP § 1005(b). However, prejudice to Defendant is not the primary issue presented by the lack of notice. For a motion to be relieved as counsel, the party most affected by grant of the motion is the client. The client needs sufficient notice and time to find another attorney or prepare to represent herself. As there may be prejudice to the client due to this late filing, the Court denies Counsel’s motion to be relieved without prejudice for Counsel to bring a properly noticed motion.

The Court also notes that the proposed order (MC-053) submitted by Counsel is deficient. First, the proposed order includes the wrong department number for this Court and does not include the physical address of the department. Effective April 16, 2018, the Court has relocated to 312 North Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012. The Court’s new location must be listed in each entry on the proposed order that identifies a future hearing or trial date. Second, Counsel has failed to identify the date, time, and location for all the hearings that are presently scheduled for this case. For example, the OSC re Dismissal scheduled for September 21, 2020 at 8:30 am is missing and should have been identified in Item 8. If Counsel chooses to re-file this motion, then Counsel must correct the above noted defects in the proposed order. Counsel should also add the following language: (a) in Item 8: “Failure to show good cause for failure to serve Defendant(s) and/or failure to appear at the 09/21/20 OSC may result in dismissal of this action” and (b) in Item 9: “Failure to appear at the 3/19/19 trial may result in dismissal of this action.” Finally, Counsel must include all upcoming motion hearing dates on the proposed order (MC-053), including the May 2, 2018 hearing on Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion by Plaintiff’s Counsel to be relieved as counsel is denied without prejudice.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future hearings will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: April 27, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court