MOJTABA TAIEBAT VS. ANDREW G WATTERS
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF MOJTABA TAIEBAT
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 5 25-CIV-06341 MOJTABA TAIEBAT VS. ANDREW G WATTERS
MOJTABA TAIEBAT MICHAEL TSIVYAN ANDREW G WATTERS JERAMY STEPHEN STONE
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF MOJTABA TAIEBAT
CONTINUED FROM 6/23/2026
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court continued the hearing from June 23, 2026 until September 8, 2026 because of a pending August 4, 2026 demurrer and the potential prejudice to plaintiff, which was one of plaintiff’s request.
The demurrer has been resolved and the only pending hearing is a case management conference on November 4, 2026. Thus, the court’s concerns regarding prejudice to plaintiff no longer exist.
Although plaintiff raises other objections to the withdrawal of Tsivyan, the court cannot order an attorney to take certain litigation steps. These requests show a break-down of communication. The court finds good cause to grant the motion based upon Tsivyan’s declaration and there is no prejudice to plaintiff.
Therefore the court GRANTS the motion of Michael Tsivyan to be relieved of counsel for plaintiff.
The withdrawal does not become effective until the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client and all other notices.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action and plaintiff, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Cited authorities
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?”