“With the exception of a court appointment, the relationship of lawyer and client is created by contract.” (Houston Gen Ins Co v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 958, 964.) An attorney and a person seeking legal services may agree “that the scope of the legal services will be limited to specific tasks that the attorney will perform for the person.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 5.425; Sullivan v. Dunne (1926) 198 Cal. 183, 190.)
According to the California Rules of Court, there are two types of limited scope representation:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 5.425(c).)
An attorney can elect to notify the Court and other parties of a limited scope representation. (Cal. Rule of Ct., Rule 3.35.) A party and an attorney may provide notice of their agreement to limited scope representation by serving and filing a Notice of Limited Scope Representation (form MC-950). (Cal. Rule of Ct., Rule 3.36(a).) If such a notice is filed and served, then the papers in the case must be served on both the attorney providing the limited scope representation and the client. (Cal. Rule of Ct., Rule 3.36(b).)
Angelucci—who had only represented Dettamanti in a limited-scope representation which had terminated earlier this year, and was not representing her with respect to these issues—was killed on July 11, 2020.] Based upon this history, Kopcrak now seeks terminating and monetary sanctions ($7,617.10), for Dettamanti’s willful failure to comply with the court’s order compelling that her deposition take place on July 13 and 14.
Sep 17, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
After a continuance, NCC has obtained counsel for a limited scope representation. NCC filed an opposition, which is essentially identical to the one filed by NCC's prior counsel. The opposition was filed late. The Court need not consider the opposition. But even if the Court considered the merits of the opposition, the Court would still grant the motion. The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.
Sep 03, 2020
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
Given the statements of compliance that FCA has already offered, as well as the limited scope of this litigation (a car for which Plaintiff paid $57,000), the court finds that to include the emails in FCA’s discovery responses would render discovery of such breadth as to outweigh the likely benefit to this litigation under Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.8.
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Again, one business day prior to the set deposition, Daniel Tepper informed Plaintiff he would not be appearing because he could not get in touch with his limited scope attorney, Robert Smith. Plaintiff informed Daniel Tepper his non-appearance would result in court intervention. (Mobasser Decl., ¶9; Exh. 7.) Daniel Tepper failed to appear on March 5, 2020 and Plaintiff had to take a certificate of non-appearance. (Mobasser Decl., ¶9; Exh. 7 and McCarthy Decl. ¶3; Exh. 1.)
Aug 10, 2020
Real Property
other
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed her opposition and a Notice of Limited Scope of Representation indicating she would be represented by Adela Z. Ulloa (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) on the limited scope basis of preparing the opposition to the demurrer to the SAC and preparing the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) and other matters related to an ex parte application for leave to file a TAC.
Aug 07, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Scope Representation (Judicial Council mandatory form CIV-150) to represent her as her attorney of record in this case.
Aug 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Paralegals Michael Martel (“Martel”) and Sean An (“An”), provided additional, limited-scope assistance. Michael Adreani, Esq. (“Adreani”), a partner at the firm with 22 years of experience as a civil litigator, consulted very briefly on this attorneys’ fee motion. Roxborough Decl. ¶5.
Jul 23, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
(See e.g., CRC Rule 3.36 [CIV-150 Form re Notice of Limited Scope Representation]; CCP §§284-285 [MC-050 Form re Substitution of Attorney – Civil].) On July 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Limited Scope Representation, but this was done only days before the hearing and after the meet and confer efforts and motion papers were filed. Thus, at this time, the Court will grant the motion to quash the subpoena issued on Citibank.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(See e.g., CRC Rule 3.36 [CIV-150 Form re Notice of Limited Scope Representation]; CCP §§284-285 [MC-050 Form re Substitution of Attorney – Civil].) On July 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Limited Scope Representation, which this was done only days before the hearing and after the meet and confer efforts and motion papers were filed. Thus, at this time, the Court will grant the motion to quash the subpoena issued on Citibank.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(See e.g., CRC Rule 3.36 [CIV-150 Form re Notice of Limited Scope Representation]; CCP §§284-285 [MC-050 Form re Substitution of Attorney – Civil].) On July 1, 2020, Defendant filed a Notice of Limited Scope Representation, but this was done only days before the hearing and after the meet and confer efforts and motion papers were filed. Thus, at this time, the Court will grant the motion to quash the subpoena issued on Citibank.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant emphasizes that Plaintiff’s fraud claim rests only on alleged omissions and concealment, which fall outside of the limited scope of the Robinson exception, which applies only to affirmative representations. (Demurrer, at p. 9.) Defendant relies as well upon Thompson v. BMW of North America, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2019), No. SACV 17-01912-CJC-KS, 2019 WL 988694, at *5 (applying California law and finding omission claim not falling under Robinson exception).
Jul 09, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis The Court finds that Bohm and Ciarimboli did not file an Application to Be Relieved as Attorney on Completion of Limited Scope Representation using form CIV-151. Bohm and Ciarimboli filed a motion to be relieved as counsel using forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Plaintiff was served with the motion to be relieved as counsel on March 2, 2020 via overnight mail. Plaintiff did not file her objection until June 9, 2020.
Jun 29, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court also notes that Lentz admits that he is in a limited scope representation with Defendant. (Lentz Decl., ¶ 2.) Per CRC Rule 3.36(a), the attorney and client must provide notice of their agreement by serving and filing a mandatory Judicial Council form that discloses the nature and duration of the attorney's representation. Lentz has not complied with his obligations to notice the court and Plaintiff of this limited scope representation.
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 12, 2019, Defendant Best Alliance Foreclosure and Lien Services filed a declaration of trustee’s non-monetary status to Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Civil Code section 2924l notice of limited scope representation pursuant to Civil Code section 2924l. On January 30, 2020, Defendant Eduardo A. Canas was dismissed by the Court pursuant to an oral request made by Plaintiff.
Mar 06, 2020
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
Frederick Seigenfeld, under a limited scope agreement to advise and prepare court documents for an uncontested dissolution of marriage and associated requests for orders. Mr. Seigenfeld has been practicing in family law since 2016 and charges $300/hr. Father is employed by the City of Santa Barbara.
Mar 03, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Angelucci for Angelina Dettamanti on a limited scope basis formotion to vacate orders only Angelina Dettamanti is in pro per on all other matters Rafael G. Gutierrez for non-party Marcial Lopez TENTATIVE RULINGS: (1) The motion to disqualify counsel is denied in its entirety.
Feb 20, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
The court’s file does not reflect that a substitution has been filed nor a court order obtained permitting the limited scope representation after application. While present counsel, Kurt Zimmerman, discloses that he was retained for a limited scope, the court’s file does not reflect that Plaintiff filed such a notice with the court on Judicial Council form CIV-150. Cal Rules of Court 3.36.
Feb 05, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff contends Defendant’s demurrer should be rejected outright because it purportedly exceeds the limited scope of representation of Defendant’s “limited scope” attorney. The Court is not persuaded. Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that the Court may overrule, or disregard, a demurrer on this basis.
Feb 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
Procedural Defect “Limited scope representation” is “a relationship between an attorney and a person seeking legal services in which they have agreed that the scope of the legal services will be limited to specific tasks that the attorney will perform for that person.” (CRC Rule 3.35(a).) “A party and an attorney may provide notice of their agreement to limited scope representation by serving and filing a Notice of Limited Scope Representation.” (CRC Rule 3.36(a).)
Jan 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 20, 2019, Recinos filed a Notice of Limited Scope Representation, notifying the court that Imperiale would again represent Recinos at the hearing the same day. On December 20, 2019, the court granted Recinos’ ex parte application for a TRO/OSC. The court directed Recinos to personally serve the Summons, Complaint, and TRO/OSC by December 23, 2019 and to file the proof of service by December 30, 2019.
Jan 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
