Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV38024, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV38024    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

September 29, 2023

CASE NUMBER

20STCV38024

MOTION

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

MOVING PARTY

Attorney Alexander Zeesman

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

            Attorney Alexander Zeesman (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jasmine DeLeon (Plaintiff).

 

ANALYSIS

 

            Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reasons: “Breakdown in Client-Attorney Relationship.”  The Court finds the declaration contains insufficient information for the Court to determine whether the requested relief is warranted. In addition, both the proposed order and motion do not accurately give the Plaintiff notice of the upcoming hearing dates.

 

            Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to be relieved without prejudice.