Substitution/Association of Attorney

Useful Resources for Substitution or Association of Attorney

Recent Rulings on Substitution or Association of Attorney

MAGDA LOPEZ VS STEVEN AGUILAR, ET AL.

I sent a Substitution of Attorney Form to plaintiff. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Substitution of Attorney form but has failed to execute and return it to me.” Flanagan states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via an October 27, 2020 email.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VN PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS MACAULEY EKPENISI, ET AL.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Ogbogu Defendants request judicial notice of documents filed in the Cox Lawsuit, including: (1) the complaint filed October 1, 2015; (2) the FAC filed October 6, 2015; (3) Notice of Association of Counsel of Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE FISHER NELSON JR.

A Substitution of Attorney was filed 1210/19, when Bradley Hollister was substituted in. Attorney fails to discuss how the statutory attorney fee will be split with Mr. Doughtery. (Probate Code §10814) Upon filing of statutorily written acceptance of trust, and a discussion re the splitting of attorney fees, accept waiver and approve report. Approve voluntarily reduced statutory fees of $4,000.00. Approve reimbursement of costs of $95.00 to attorney Hollister.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ESTATE OF THOMAS J. BYRNE VS. OWENS

On 12/17/19, Defendants filed a substitution of attorney, substituting in Mel T. Owens to represent himself in pro per; however, Mr. Nash remains as counsel for NBO. In a shareholder derivative action, “although the corporation is a nominal codefendant, its interests are normally adverse to the other defendants especially where management personnel are charged with wrongdoing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

BETTY HARRIS PICKENS VS GOOD HOPE HOME HEALTH CARE

Counsel states that Plaintiff knowingly and freely terminated counsel’s employment but has yet to sign the substitution of attorney despite repeated confirmations of her intention to sign the substitution of attorney since February 2020. Counsel further states that his ability to practice litigation full time is limited by his kidney disorder, making it difficult to carry out employment effectively.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

RIF III - BROADWAY, LLC VS L.A. NUTRITION, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Nutrition, LLC filed a substitution of attorney in which an individual named “Toshiyuke Horie” purported to substitute himself as counsel of record for this corporate defendant. However, apparently Toshiyuke Horie is not an attorney but, instead, the sole proprietor of Defendant. Thus, the Court set an OSC re: status of representation for October 19, 2020. No appearance was made by Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK

On January 31, 2020, defendants filed and served a Notice of Association of Counsel, associating these attorneys as attorneys for defendants City of Burbank, Burbank Police Department, Mark Scott, and Scott LaChasse in this action. [Glave Decl., para. 6, Ex. 1].

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHAN V. HAROUTOONIAN, ET AL.

Lawrence, was not responsive to Plaintiff's counsel's communications until November 5, 2020, when he indicated that if substitution of attorney forms were not signed, he would move to withdraw as counsel. (Lu Decl., at ¶¶ 7, 15 & Exh. 1.) Mr. Lawrence's former firm also indicated that Mr. Lawrence would not be representing Defendants. (Lu Decl., at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was left to serve discovery upon Defendants' counsel record, Mr. Lawrence. (Mot., at p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ANI MIRZOYAN VS WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC.

However, the court observes that a substitution of attorney has been filed, rendering the application moot. RELIEF REQUESTED: WCW Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit Plaintiff's claims to final and binding arbitration pursuant to an agreement WCW contends was executed on November 04, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JERON GREEN, SR, ET AL. VS AD ASTRA INVESTMENTS, LLC

Plaintiff has also not filed a substitution of attorney. Because the moving papers meet the initial burden to show the RFAs should be deemed admitted, and because there is no opposition to the motion, the motion is granted. Sanctions are mandatory. §2033.280(c). Defendant seeks sanctions in an unclear amount. The notice of motion indicates Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $4515. The points and authorities indicate Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $3030.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

REBECCA COOPER VS KENNETH GRAY, ET AL.

On March 2, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kenneth Gray filed a substitution of attorney, substituting his former counsel, Amy B. Lawrence, with himself. On July 30, 2020,the Court granted the three motions to be relieved as counsel filed by Amy B. Lawrence, counsel for Mowgly Unlimited, Inc., KAG Consulting, Inc., and 21st Century Wellness, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PB COMPANIES LLC V. TAYLOR JUDKINS

However, on October 27, 2020, John Belsher (“Belsher”) joined as co-counsel for Plaintiff, and on November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Plaintiff is no longer represented by Ogden, but is now represented solely by Belsher, and Belsher filed the opposition to this motion. but potentially unethical. (Raftery Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LUBIN ROCHA VS MARIA LOPEZ

Plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of attorney on November 10, 2020 indicating he was now being represented by Joan Lauricella with the Law Offices of Joan Lauricella, APC. On December 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Failure to Respond to Court-Ordered Discovery (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 5, 2021. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

FREDDIE BEVERLY VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney on November 25, 2019 indicating he was now being represented by Kenechi R. Agu. Defendant filed an Answer on January 10, 2020. On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion to be relieved as counsel which is scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Defendant filed the instant Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions Against Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on October 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

WOSOUGHKIA VS. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL, INC.

Substitution of Attorney, ROA No. 471. Although attorney Roesler appeared at the judgment debtor examinations, it does not appear attorney Roesler represented Madain in his individual capacity. The Court also notes Judgment Creditors’ proof of service for their moving papers and reply did not strictly comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, subdivision (1). “In making service by mail there must be a strict compliance with sections 1012, 1013 and 1013a.” (Forslund v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

The Court requests the submission of authenticated documents, and information on the following: A declaration from the claimant concerning the status of his legal representation, acknowledging his signature on the substitution of attorney and that the substitution reflects his wishes, as well as a statement establishing as authentic any documents claimant executed, including The Bill Chandler Family Living Trust, and the Trust Transfer Deed executed May 16, 2018, and expressing his intentions with respect to

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MAHER MEMARZADEH VS LOTTIE COHEN ET AL

Cohen filed a substitution of attorney on January 11, 2017. (SAC, ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) The second agreement was entered into in January 2017. (SAC, ¶ 10, Ex. 3.) Cohen represented Plaintiff through June 14, 2017. (SAC, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MIN WANG VS AGA CAPITAL USA 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 two of the three mandatory forms. Counsel states they had amicably substituted out of the case, but inadvertently did not include Mr. Geng. (See 11/9/20 Miller Decl., ¶ 14.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RAFAEL ARAUJO ET AL VS ELEN BATOYAN

Plaintiffs provide they were originally represented in this matter by counsel, Rooh Singh (“Singh”), but on 9/6/19, Plaintiffs each filed a Substitution of Attorney form agreeing to represent themselves because Singh could not represent them. Plaintiffs assert that on 1/30/20 they attempted to continue the trial date, but unbeknownst to Plaintiffs the trial continuance request was denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

NEWSTART REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC VS 325 FLAMINGO LLC ET A

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney. This substitution indicates that Plaintiff had retained Ching K. Chiao and Alexei Brenot of Chiao & Wu, LLP as its counsel. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside/vacate dismissal. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside/vacate dismissal now comes on for hearing. The Yeh Defendants oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

NANCY CHAN VS CARRIE ELIZABETH HAYES

… (c) Procedures to be relieved as counsel on completion of representation Notwithstanding rule 3.1362, an attorney who has completed the tasks specified in the Notice of Limited Scope Representation (form CIV-150) may use the procedures in this rule to request that he or she be relieved as attorney in cases in which the attorney has appeared before the court as an attorney of record and the client has not signed a Substitution of Attorney--Civil (form MC-050).

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE VS RIGOBERTO VEGA AVILA

Plaintiff’s counsel is instructed to file a Substitution of Attorney.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

LORI HOEFT VS E&S MANAGEMENT RING CORP, ET AL.

Plaintiff did not file a substitution of attorney until August 31, 2020. (Declaration of Daniel S. Alderman, § 5.) For these reasons, and because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants have not yet deposed Plaintiff, or conducted necessary follow-up discovery. Defendants have shown good cause, and the Court finds that Defendants should suffer substantial prejudice if this motion was not granted. Conversely, the Court finds no undue prejudice to Plaintiff. Therefore, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

NINGBO EGO-GLOBAL CO. (CHINA) LTD VS DECOR DU SOLEIL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

There were no pressing matters in this case because of the stay, so Firm did not push Plaintiffs to get the Substitution of Attorney Form on file. Groendal has informed Agle that he has not been able to sign a Substitution of Attorney on behalf of Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have not signed an engagement agreement with Jeffer Mangels.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

PEDRO SEDANO GOMEZ , ET AL. VS RUBEN VALENZUELA

After Defendant filed his three discovery motions, a substitution of attorney form was executed as to each Plaintiff which stated that Jack D. Josephson was no longer representing Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are now each representing themselves in pro per. THE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MOTION The Court GRANTS IN PART the Requests for Production Motion as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 83     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.