Gonzalez v. Belinski, et al.

Jessica L. Moran ("Moran") of Plante Huguenin Launi Kahn, LLP s eeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Tu & Zhou ("Clients"). The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) California Rule of Court ("CRC") Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil form (MC-053)).

The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. Attorney Moran represents that Ira D. Lebovic, the case's handling partner, abruptly retired from the firm. The firm sent correspondences to the clients on 5/22/26, 6/23/26, 6/30/26, and 7/1/26 via U.S. Mail to the clients' last known addresses and to the last known email addresses, informing them that Mr. Lebovic was no longer at the firm and that the firm lacked an available attorney to continue representing the clients.

Thus, the firm would be moving to withdraw as counsel pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1362 and Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(10) if the clients did not retain new counsel to substitute into the case. Moran states that she has served the Clients by mail at their last known addresses confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current via the Secretary of State website. The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Clients at the Clients' last known address(es).

et al., Case No. 23PSCV00358 ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff Anna Gonzalez's Application for Default Judgment as to Theodore D. Duran & DNL Co. dba WeRoof CalPro Renovations is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Anna Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows: On or about April 1, 2019, Plaintiff purchased the property located at 142 S. Pintado Drive in Diamond Bar (the "subject property") from Victor A. Belinski and Lila Lane Belinski (together, "Sellers"). Jessica Khoury ("Khoury"), an agent of RTD Group, Inc. dba Keller Williams Realty ("RTD"), represented Plaintiff in the transaction, while Fenny Widhiahrini ("Widhiahrini"), an agent of Ahmed H. Almas dba Newell Banker Real Estate, represented Sellers in the transaction.

Theodore D. Duran ("Duran"), an agent of DNL Co. dba WeRoof CalPro Renovations ("DNL"), performed a roof inspection and certified the roof on the subject property. Sellers failed to disclose extensive plumbing issues, prior roof leaks, the fact that the sunroom addition that they performed was unpermitted, and extensive electrical issues, which were all unknown to Plaintiff. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Sellers, DNL, Duran, RTD, Khoury, Widhiahrini, Ahmed H.

Almas dba Newell Banker Real Estate, and Does 1-25 for: (1) Breach of Written Contract for the Sale of Real Property, (2) Breach of Written Contract for Certification of Real Property, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (4) Violation of Civil Code Sec. 1102, et seq. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an "Amendment to Complaint," correcting the name of Ahmed H. Almas dba Newell Banker Real Estate to "Almas H. Ahmed dba Newwell Banker Real Estate" ("Newwell Real Estate'). On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed RTD, without prejudice; that day, Plaintiff filed two "Amendment[s] to Complaint," wherein Riverside Inland Real Estate, Inc. dba Keller Williams Realty Riverside Central Market Center ("Riverside Inland") and Stephanie DeBonis ("DeBonis") were named in lieu of Does 1 and 2, respectively.

On February 13, 2025, DNL's default was entered. On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed DeBonis, without prejudice. On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Khoury and Riverside Inland, with prejudice. On May 28, 2025, Duran's default was entered. On August 21, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff's application for default judgment without prejudice due to several deficiencies. On November 24, 2025, the Court continued the status conference RE: Defaulted Defendants and ordered mediation to be completed by April 3, 2026.

On April 21, 2026, the Court noted during the Status Conference that the matter was settled as to Sellers only. On July 14, 2026, Victor A. Belinski and Lila Lane Belinski were dismissed with prejudice. On August 11, 2026, Ahmed H. Almas dba Newwell Banker Real Estate and Fenny Widhiahrini were dismissed with prejudice. A Case Management Conference is set for August 18, 2026.

Discussion

Plaintiff's

Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted: 1. It is unclear to the Court how the $31,021.00 "[d]emand of complaint" set forth on Page 1, Paragraph 2(a) of Judicial Council Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment was calculated. Exhibit C suggests that $14,926.00 was paid pursuant to the October 22, 2021 invoice. The other document attached to Exhibit C is a proposal from Kertland Roofing, Inc., dated April 24, 2020, without an indication that the proposal was accepted. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel speak to the Kertland proposal. Even if one were to add the two sums ($14,926.00+$15,700.00), the total comes out to $30,626.00. It also seems like the proposal is for the same job that is invoiced.

2. Counsel Tim J. Pollard attests that Exhibit C consists of "invoices, contractor estimates, and photographs evidencing the ongoing water intrusion and resulting damage." (Pollard Decl., P. 8, Exh. C.) Exhibit C contains two copies of an invoice from P.H. Roofing/Paul Harris dated October 22, 2021 and two pages of a Proposal from Kertland Roofing, Inc. dated April 24, 2020. No photographs are attached.

3. Counsel requests a judgment of $31,556.00 in his declaration. Plaintiff requests $32,577.00 on Page 1, Paragraph 2(f) of Judicial Council Form CIV-100 and in the proposed judgment. These discrepancies should be reconciled. Accordingly, the application is denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised and complete default judgment application that addresses the aforementioned issues. Any subsequently submitted default prove-up application must be full and complete, in and of itself. The Court will not review piecemeal submissions. | Home -->)" -->