Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20607, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV20607 Hearing Date: August 22, 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. 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 | August 22, 2023 |
| CASE NUMBER | 21STCV20607 |
| MOTION | Motion to be Relieved as Counsel |
| MOVING PARTY | George B. Pacheco, Esq. of The Law Offices of George B. Pacheco & Associates |
| OPPOSING PARTY | None |
George B. Pacheco, Esq. of The Law Offices of George B. Pacheco & Associates (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Teresa Lopez and Mariah Lopez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
The Court notes that Counsel has filed forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 per California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for the motion is that there has been irreconcilable breakdown between Counsel and Plaintiff. This is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16.)
However, the Court notes that Counsel filed and served the motion on August 8, 2023, when the hearing is scheduled for August 22, 2023. This is less than 16 court days before the hearing, and is therefore untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The Court also notes that the supporting declaration and proposed order submitted with the motion do not contain all future hearing dates. Paragraph 6 of the supporting declaration does not provide all of the information requested therein, and Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the proposed order have not been filled out.
The Court further notes that Rule 3.1362(d) of the California Rules of Court does not actually provide that service of this motion may be made by overnight delivery, which is the method of service Counsel used here. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d) [“The 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. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail.”])
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice.