Tsheridis Family Trust vs. Aronas Corporation

sought an order setting aside the ACLO in its entirety. (See ROA #106.)

The second step of this analysis identifies the relief actually obtained through the court and the third step addresses both parties’ litigation objectives, which involves a review of their pleadings, briefs and other sources.

The court is familiar with this litigation and has reviewed the case files.

Petitioners did not achieve their goal of setting aside the ACLO in its entirety. While the court found that Respondent’s findings of the volume discharge calculations were not supported by substantial evidence, the court did not find that Respondent lacked authority to impose a penalty based on the quantity of stormwater discharged. Further, Petitioners unsuccessfully advanced numerous challenges, both substantive and procedural, to the ACLO.

The court finds that neither Petitioners nor Respondent are prevailing parties for purposes of Section 1032(a)(4).

Therefore, neither party is entitled to an award of costs and the court will grant the motion to strike costs.

Respondent shall give notice of this ruling.

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary 7 30-2025-01489744 Adjudication

Defendant Linda Isle Community Association’s Baldoni vs. Hill Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is taken OFF CALENDAR pursuant to Defendant Linda Isle Community Association’s Notice of Withdrawal and Taking Off-Calendar of the Motin for Summary Judgment and the Hearing Scheduled for May 11, 2026 (ROA #127), filed April 10, 2026.

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

8 Counsel Edwin B. Brown’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aronas Corporation is DENIED without prejudice.

Tsheridis Family Trust vs. Aronas Corporation Counsel Edwin B. Brown remains and shall continue to act as counsel of record for Defendant Aronas Corporation.

Pending Motion

Counsel Edwin B. Brown (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Aronas Corporation.

Standard to Be Relieved as Counsel

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination . . . [u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

The notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Civil Procedure Code section 284 shall be directed to the client and shall be made on the Judicial Council’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil form (Form MC-051). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a).)

No memorandum is required for the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(b).)

However, “[t]he motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), italics original.)

In addition, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e), italics original.)

Motions to be relieved as counsel “must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case” and service must be made

by “personal service, electronic service, or mail.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

If the motion is served by mail, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).)

“As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Ibid.)

If the motion is served by electronic mail, “it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).)

The motion may be brought on various grounds, some of which include the client’s failure to pay attorney fees, (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406); the client’s insistence on an action that is not justified under existing law or by good faith argument, (Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1015); and a conflict of interest between counsel and the client, (Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592.)

However, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, “a member shall not terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel, and complying with paragraph (e).” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(d); see Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Thus, the court has discretion to deny a motion to be relieved as counsel where discharging counsel would result in “undue prejudice to the client’s

interests, ” (Ramirez vs. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915), or “an unreasonable disruption of the orderly processes of justice,” (People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 979). The court may also deny an attorney’s request to withdraw “where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding”. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) However, such discretion is to be exercised reasonably. (Ibid.)

Here, Counsel has failed to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court, including filing and serving the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (Form MC-052).

In addition, Counsel has not filed and served the mandatory form Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (Form MC-053.)

Further, the proof of service is unclear as to how Defendant Aronas Corporation was served. Although the proof of service states that Defendant Aronas Corporation was served by electronic mail, it does not include an electronic mail address for Defendant Aronas Corporation.

Nor has Counsel prepared a declaration stating either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).)

Therefore, the court will deny without prejudice the motion to be relieved as counsel.

The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.

Demurrer and Motion to Strike 9 30-2024-01449453 Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto’s Demurrer to Cross- Complaint is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 9:00 Four Aces Remodeling, LLC a.m. in Department N15. vs. Always in Motion, LLC Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto’s Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N15.