Case Number: BC641186 Hearing Date: February 05, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

angelina carlos duran,

Plaintiff,

v.

lyudmila garayan, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC641186

Hearing Date: February 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Arnold J. Alban (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Cross-Defendants Tamir Zilberberg (“Zilberberg”) and Oscar Daniel Campos. Zilberberg opposes the motion. The motion is denied without prejudice.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

The Court previously denied Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice. In its order of October 30, 2018, the Court stated, “Counsel must set forth additional efforts to confirm each client’s current addresses. Counsel must timely serve each client with the moving papers and file proofs of service of such — one as to each client. The Court also notes that there should be a separate motion (MC-051) and a separate declaration (MC-052) for each Cross-Defendant in order to make a clear record. Also, Counsel must file two separate proposed orders—one for each client—and each signed proposed order must be separately served on each Cross-Defendant.” (See October 29, 2018 Order on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.)

Counsel has corrected the defects the Court previously identified. However, Counsel did not file renewed motions to be relieved as counsel until January 10, 2019. With a trial date of March 25, 2019, less than two months after the hearing date on this motion, Cross-Defendants will likely suffer prejudice if the Court were to grant the motions. (See Filbin v. Fitzgerald (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 170.) Further, Counsel states that the basis of this motion is the denial of insurance coverage. However, per the evidence Counsel has advanced, the insurer denied coverage on June 18, 2018, more than three months before Counsel filed his initial motion to be relieved as counsel, and nearly seven months before Counsel filed the present motions. Counsel’s failure to promptly seek relief has prejudiced his clients. While Counsel did obtain a trial continuance on November 6, 2018, Counsel then waited nearly two months to renew his motion to be relieved as counsel. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. The Court will consider granting the motion should Counsel take additional steps to mitigate the prejudice to his clients, such as negotiating or seeking a trial continuance, or ensuring that his clients have new counsel able to proceed on the current trial date.

Moving Counsel is ordered to provide notice of this order, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 5, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court