Sandy Sampson, et al. v. Emma Nuñez, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 508) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 508 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 SANDY SAMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. EMMA NUÑEZ, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

| Hearing Date: | August 26, 2026 | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL | Background

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Sandy Sampson, Jesus Rosas, Angelica Rosas, and Jose Jesus Rosas (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed this action against Defendant Emma Nuñez.

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Emma Nuñez and Sergio Nuñez, alleging seven causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability, (3) retaliation-- violation of Civil Code Sec. 1942.5, (4) unlawful business practice, Bus. Prof. Code Sec.Sec. 17200 et seq., (5) violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code Sec.Sec. 12900 et seq., (6) violation of the Unruh Act, Civil Code Sec. 51, and (7) harassment in violation of the Los Angeles County Code Sec. 8.52.130.

Andrew E. Smyth of Smyth Law Office ("Counsel") moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Emma Nuñez ("Defendant"). Defendant filed an opposition. Counsel did not reply.

Discussion

A. Defects with the Instant Motion

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Counsel's motion is deficient for a few reasons, listed below.

First, Counsel failed to provide proof of service for Defendant Sergio Nuñez. California Rules of Court rule 3.1362(d) necessitates that "[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case." Counsel filed proof of service for Plaintiffs and Defendant, but Counsel did not for Sergio Nuñez. Counsel must serve all parties to the case with the papers accompanying the instant motion.

Second, Counsel's notice of motion (MC-051 form) and declaration in support (MC-052 form) list the hearing location as Department 506. However, the correct department is 508. The incorrect department does not provide proper notice to the parties.

Third, Counsel does not list the additional scheduled hearings and proceedings under item 5 of the declaration in support (MC-052 form). Based on the foregoing, Counsel's motion is denied without prejudice.

B. Defendant's Opposition

Defendant files an opposition to Counsel's motion, in which she asserts that she "does not seek to force Mr. Smyth to continue representing her if he maintains that he is medically unable to provide the representation this case requires. Nor does Defendant ask this Court to determine at this hearing whether Mr. Smyth has otherwise breached professional duties owed to Defendant. Defendant does, however, oppose the Motion as presently presented because the circumstances surrounding counsel's requested withdrawal, the status of the representation, the notice provided to Defendant, and counsel's failure to provide Defendant with her requested client files create a substantial risk of prejudice to Defendant if counsel is simply permitted to withdraw without appropriate protection." (Opp., 2:6-11.)

Defendant files a declaration in support where she attests that "[o]n or about July 29, 2026, I became aware that Mr. Smyth intended to file a motion to be relieved as my counsel," and she "sent Mr. Smyth an email acknowledging my understanding that he intended to seek withdrawal and requesting printed copies of my case files so that I could provide them to a new attorney." (Emma Nuñez Decl., P.P. 3-4; Ex. B.)

However, Defendant attests that "Mr. Smyth did not respond to my request for my files," and as of the date of the declaration, on August 17, 2026, Counsel still had not sent Defendant "the requested files, either in paper form or otherwise." (Emma Nuñez Decl., P.P. 8-9.)

Defendant attests that "I do not ask the Court to force Mr. Smyth to continue representing me if he believes that his medical condition prevents him from doing so." (Emma Nuñez Decl., P. 18.)

However, Defendant states that her "concern is that I be provided with my complete case files and a reasonable opportunity to obtain replacement counsel so that my interests are not prejudiced by the termination of Mr. Smyth's representation." (Emma Nuñez Decl., P. 19.)

Defendant also attests that she "did not receive the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel that his proof of service states was mailed to me," and "Mr. Smyth did not personally advise me that the hearing on his Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel had been scheduled for August 26, 2026." (Emma Nuñez Decl., P.P. 11-12.)

Sergio Nuñez, Defendant's son, also provides a declaration. He attests that "[o]n August 13, 2026, I checked the Los Angeles Superior Court's online case information for this action and discovered that Mr. Smyth's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was scheduled for hearing on August 26, 2026," and "[a]fter discovering the scheduled hearing, I informed my mother of the August 26, 2026 hearing." (Sergio Nuñez Decl., P.P. 6-7.)

Defendant asserts that Counsel's failure to provide Defendant with her case files "materially impairs Defendant's ability to consult intelligently with replacement counsel, determine the status of pending discovery, evaluate prior filings and communications, and protect herself after Mr. Smyth's withdrawal." (Opp., 3:22-23.)

Moreover, Defendant contends that "[t]here is presently an active discovery dispute concerning Defendant's deposition. Indeed, Mr. Smyth's own Declaration identifies an Informal Discovery Conference concerning Defendant's personal appearance at deposition scheduled for August 26, 2026 at 11:30 a.m.-- approximately ninety minutes after the scheduled hearing on his Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. [1] Thus, Defendant faces the possibility that counsel will be relieved at 10:00 a.m. while Defendant simultaneously confronts an unresolved discovery matter at 11:30 a.m., without her complete client file and without replacement counsel. Defendant respectfully submits that these circumstances warrant particular care to ensure that withdrawal does not cause avoidable prejudice." (Opp., 4:4-10.)

Based on the foregoing concerns advanced by Defendant, she demonstrates that she would be prejudiced if the Court granted the instant motion at this time. Accordingly, the Court finds it prudent to also deny the motion on substantive grounds.

The Court recognizes that Counsel's request for relief is due to medical issues; however, if Counsel cannot personally provide Defendant with her files, Counsel must facilitate arrangements for her to receive her files. Additionally, if Counsel is unable to file a new motion, Counsel should seek assistance of other counsel in filing and serving a proper motion to be relieved. The Court will discuss rescheduling the Informal Discovery Conference with the parties at the hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: August 26, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Because there is a jury trial in Dept. 508 starting at 10 a.m., the Informal Discovery Conference was moved to 12:15 p.m.

Case Number: 22STCV35791 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 508 THE HEARING WILL HAVE TO BE CONTINUED BECAUSE THE COURT DID NOT RECEIVE THE REQUISITE COURTESY COPIES OF THE MOVING AND REPLY PAPERS.

Case Number: 25STCV08881 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 508 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 RHN AUTOMOTIVE INC., dba NISSANI BROS. NISSAN, Plaintiff, vs. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. | Case No.: | 25STCV08881 | Hearing Date: | August 26, 2026 | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL NEW GENERATION DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS |

Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company ("Defendant") moves for an order enforcing the Subpoena for Business Records issued to third-party New Generation Development Group, Inc., on August 14, 2025 and served on August 26, 2025, directing New Generation Development Group, Inc. to produce all records in its possession and control responsive to the subpoena.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against New Generation Development Group, Inc. in the amount of $3,900.

Defendant's motion will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON AUGUST 26, 2026.