Substitution/Association of Attorney

Useful Rulings on Substitution or Association of Attorney

Recent Rulings on Substitution or Association of Attorney

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Defendants SPS, U.S. Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant. Legal Standard A party may be deemed a vexatious litigant upon a showing that the party repeatedly files unmeritorious papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. (CCP § 391(b)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ASTRAL LOGISTIC INC., A CA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JIANHUA LI, ET AL.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR LI In connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel for Li, Green declares that: (1) Li has committed numerous breaches of the retainer agreement and is refusing to take his advice concerning the handling of the case; (2) the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated and broken down so that continued representation is not possible; (3) Li refuses to execute a substitution of attorney form even though he is not allowing representation in any tangible way; and (

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Brent on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel is not proper without notice or substitution of attorney. (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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HEE WOO LEE VS PATRICK IN HWAN CHOI

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, indicating that she would no longer be self-represented and would be represented by Plaintiff’s current counsel, Richard Song (“Song”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 20, 2019. Defendant filed his opposition on March 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANNIEL MADRID VS CANDACE HOWELL

Brent on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff and counsel is not proper without notice or substitution of attorney. (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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GLNU GRAY, ET AL VSI MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL

Specifically, 1) On March 16, 2020, a Substitution of Attorney was filed in that Bradley M. Corsiglia was substituted for J.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SIMEON EVANS VS. JENNIFER ANI

Plaintiff objects only to the request for judicial notice of the Judicial Council Substitution of Attorney Form filed in the underlying action, Mendocino Case No. SCTM-CVFL-1565921 . (Ani RJ'N, Ex, A.) Without question, the form is a proper subject of judicial notice Judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only in those instances where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed (Fremont Indem, Co. v. Fremont Gen.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Brent on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel is not proper without notice or substitution of attorney. (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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZIPPRICH V. CASE

But the record reflects Case is self-represented in this action and no substitution of attorney to bring this attorney in has been filed. But the notices reflect in the text that the withdrawals are as to the lis pendens filed in the prior action, Case v. Zipprich, 19-1065844, where Welch is the attorney of record for Daniel Case. That said, the “Notices” are just that, notices.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

REGENCY LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOV

Andrew Wolf, the managing member of Regency Land Development LLC, a Nevada LLC, fired [Counsel] as his counsel and signed a substitution of attorney which [Counsel] filed with the court on March 2, 2020. Mr. Wolf subsequently passed away. Mr. Wolf fired [Counsel] over a disagreement as to strategy. There is no purpose served, that [Counsel is] aware of, in keeping [Counsel] in the case a counsel of record for Regency Land Development, LLC. In addition, around the time Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATHAN MADANI VS O'GARA COACH COMPANY LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

O’Gara filed a substitution of attorney on April 7, 2020, changing counsel of record from The Law Offices of Kolar & Associates to Lehrman Law Group. Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendant meets its burden to meet and confer. Legal Standard A party may demur to a complaint or cross-complaint filed against them on grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e); see Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DONALD L. CRAWFORD, SR. VS ALERO MACK, JR., ET AL.

Demurring Defendants allegedly distributed the surplus funds to Burke’s former attorney despite being in possession of a substitution of attorney form, causing Cross-Complainant Mack to be damaged in the amount of attorneys’ fees he was to receive. (Id. at ¶¶BC-1, BC-2.) 1st Cause of Action for Indemnification Although the Cross-Complaint does not specify the type of indemnification—express, implied or equitable—the allegations make it clear only the equitable kind is at issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

SHILLETTE BUSBY, ET AL. VS RICHARD VAUGHN, ET AL.

Additionally, the declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why” a motion is brought instead of filing a substitution of attorney. (CRC, 3.1362(c).) Discussion The Court finds that Counsel submits all the mandatory forms.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ADRIANA DUARTE VS SMG CARS INC ET AL

Because this order will not be effective until after moving counsel has filed certain documents as discussed below, he is expected to continue to represent Defendant in the hearing on July 2, unless a substitution of attorney for Defendant has been filed before that date.[1] Attorney Sheikh was also ordered to appear personally at the hearing if a substitution of attorney is not filed beforehand.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BLACKPLUM PROPERTIES, LP V. NUNEZ

The substitution of attorney form filed August 30, 2018, contained a service address and notice of the June trial date was, according to the filed proof of service and the representation of counsel in open court, mailed to that address. Service was complete on mailing. (Evid. Code, § 641 [presumption that mail properly addressed was received].) Thus, Severson was given proper notice of the June trial date. Severson complains, however, that the USPS tracking notes show he was never personally served.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

RHENEA SINGH VS 7-ELEVEN INC., ET AL.

On 6/24/20, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form. The substitution of attorney form indicates that Plaintiff was previously in pro per, but is now represented by an attorney, Michael Shemtoub. Curiously, Shemtoub’s address and phone number are exactly those that were listed on the original complaint as Plaintiff, in pro per’s address and phone number. Further complicating the matter, Plaintiff, at ¶1 of her complaint, alleges she is a resident of Vallejo in the County of Solano, CA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

KIMIKO LEITZ VS ARTHUR NATVIG DDS ET AL

On May 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. She is now represented by counsel. On September 17, 2019, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On October 16, 2019, the appellate court denied defendant’s petition for writ of mandate. Trial is scheduled for September 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

First, Cross-Defendants have chosen Levine as counsel, as evidenced by the Substitution of Attorney Form it filed on September 19, 2019. Second, Cross-Defendants would endure hardship in replacing Levine. Cross-Defendants filed their Complaint on May 16, 2019. Levine has been on the case for 9 months, but he has had to familiarize himself with what happened in this litigation in the 4 months before he became counsel. And, trial is scheduled for September 9, 2020, which is less than 3 months away.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DAVID ELISHKOV VS THE SMEE TRUST, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares, under penalty of perjury, he mailed and confirmed by fax the Substitution of Attorney to defense counsel on February 11, 2020. (Fleischman Decl. ¶1.) However, defense counsel also declares, under penalty of perjury, that he never received the Substitution of Attorney by fax and did not receive the Substitution of Attorney by mail until February 17, 2020, 3 days after Defendant filed the Motion to Strike. (Gordon Decl. ¶¶3, 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PRINCESS NAVA CELO VS GERARDO MARCELO MARTINEZ

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney naming Ronald Grzyninsk, Esq. as her attorney. It is Plaintiff’s contention, therefore, that Attorney Fransden filed this as a limited civil action without consulting or informing her and that upon her new attorney’s substitution into the case, Plaintiff and her counsel of record determined that it should have been filed as an unlimited action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CHI MING FAN, ET AL. VS GOOD FORTUNE SUPERMARKET OF CERRITOS, LP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

A substitution of attorney does not qualify as a “mistake” under CCP § 473(a)(1). Further, Defendant filed an Answer on 12/3/19. No valid grounds exist to strike that Answer. If there are any pleading defects that were not addressed by demurrer, the Code of Civil Procedure sets forth other means to address these defects after an Answer had been filed. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAYMOND ARREHBORI VS BEZUAEHU YOTANNES ET AL

Rosen Janfaza, who is not formally representing Plaintiff, and who has not, to date, filed a substitution of attorney form. The motions to compel further responses are granted. As noted above, the responses served consisted almost entirely of objections. The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection. See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI, ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL.

On March 30, 2020, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a substitution of attorney for Alexandro, naming Michael R. Rhames as Alexandro’s new attorney. ANALYSIS: 1. Motions to Compel Discovery Responses Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030 authorizes an award of monetary sanctions against any party who engages in a misuse of the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010, subd. (d).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ROBERT LIPKIN VS JOSE GUZMAN

Additionally, the declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why” a motion is brought instead of filing a substitution of attorney. (CRC, 3.1362(c).) Discussion The Court finds that Counsel submits all the mandatory forms. Counsel states that an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship has occurred. Counsel indicates that has Defendant has not cooperated with the investigation and preparation of the case.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARMANDO PADILLA VS PADILLAS CO INC ET AL

On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff, who had been pro per, retained counsel. (6/19/19 Substitution of Attorney.) On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his TAC alleging causes of action for breach of oral contract, failure to pay wages due, and quantum meruit, a cause of action not previously alleged and therefore exceeding the scope of amendment provided for in the Court’s prior ruling. The Court also notes that on August 20, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Jim Arnold (“Arnold”), Citadel Outlets, J.A.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 71     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.