DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24STCV33343·la·Civil·Negligence
Hearing in about 2 hoursCONTINUED

Bruce Jay Perkins v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
617
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 2, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffBruce Jay Perkins
DefendantCity of Los Angeles
DefendantDavid Gollub, as Trustee of the Saad Family Trust
DefendantMonroe Street Christian Church

Attorneys

Craig L. Hartsuykerfor Plaintiff
Robert L. Bookerfor Plaintiff

Ruling

Case #: 24STCV10830 Trial Date: None Set MINOR'S COMPROMISE MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gloria Torres Sanchez RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., et al. RELIEF REQUESTED Minor's Compromise

SUMMARY OF ACTION On April 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Gloria Torres Sanchez, et al. filed the instant habitability action against Defendants 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., et al. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiffs substituted in Anza Management Company for Doe 2.

RULING: Granted. Plaintiff Gloria Torres Sanchez submits a petition for approval for minor's compromise on behalf of 17-year-old Kevin Alberto Bon Torres. The petition indicates a settlement of $90,000 with Defendants 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., Haresh Jogani, Jeet Jogani, Ritesh Desai, and Anza Management Company. The entire case is represented as settling for $1,500,000 (Attachment 11b(5)). The minor's allocation will be subject to $31,500 in attorney's fees and $2,690.21 in costs for a net deposit of $55,809.79. The Court finds the fees and costs reasonable. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955.) The Court approves the petition. The minor's $55,809.79 net balance to be invested in the identified annuity (Attachment 18b(3)). Plaintiff to give notice.

617 Date: 8-19-26 Case #: 24STCV33343 Trial Date: None Set

RELIEVED AS COUNSEL MOVING ATTORNEY: Craig L. Hartsuyker RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Bruce Jay Perkins RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff

SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff Bruce Jay Perkins filed the instant negligence action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, David Gollub, as Trustee of the Saad Family Trust, and Monroe Street Christian Church after he allegedly tripped and fell on a cracked and uplifted sidewalk.

RULING: Continued. Counsel for Plaintiff moves to be relieved as counsel of record due to an inability to contact or locate him which has hindered litigation of the case. Glucroft Investigations conducted a "skip trace" which indicated that Plaintiff may be homeless. [Booker Decl. P. 4.] Further investigation revealed that Plaintiff no longer lived at his last known address [Id. P. 5, Ex. A.]

The motion is continued due to defects in the moving papers. Counsel's moving papers are defective in several respects. First, the notice of motion and motion identifies that Craig L. Hartsuyker is withdrawing as counsel, but the declaration and proposed order identify Robert L. Booker as withdrawing counsel. Second, the declaration does not indicate whether Plaintiff has been served with the moving papers (or if counsel was unable to serve Plaintiff, why the motion should be granted anyways). Third, no proofs of service are submitted showing that the moving papers were served "on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) And finally, items 3, 6, and 7 of the proposed order are incomplete.

The Court therefore continues the instant hearing to October 2, 2026 to permit counsel to cure these deficiencies. Counsel to submit revised papers no later than 10 days before the newly set hearing date. Counsel to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share