Judge Anne Richardson, Case Number: 21STCV15837, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV15837, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15837 Hearing Date: July 1, 2024 Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

TAT KWOK, by and through his Successor in Interest, CONAIL KWOK; CONAIL KWOK, individually,

Plaintiff,

BRIGHTON CONVALESCENT, LLC dba BRIGHTON CARE CENTER; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants,

ADA KWOK, an individual; MELISSA KWOK, an individual,

Nominal Defendants.

Case No.: 21STCV15837

[Related with LASC No. 20STCV25497]

Hearing Date: 7/1/24

Trial Date: N/A

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [CRS# 8475]; and

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [CRS# 4947].

I. Background

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel Ledezma, APLC filed motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. The April 11th motions attach proof of service showing service of the motions on Plaintiffs. On April 15, 2024, Ledezma, APLC filed an additional proof of service showing service of the motions on Defendant Brighton Convalescent, LLC.

As of this date, Ledezma, APLC’s motions are unopposed.

Ledezma, APLC’s motions are now before the Court.

II. Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel: GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel ([without client consent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section] 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)

For an attorney to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a) and (c) to (e). These subdivisions require that an attorney file and show proof of service of (1) a notice and motion to be relived as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-051, (2) a declaration in support of the motion to be relived as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-052, and (3) a proposed order in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel on Judicial Council form MC-053.

The court should consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Moreover, the motion should also be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

B. Analysis

The Court GRANTS Ledezma, APLC’s motions.

First, Plaintiffs’ counsel Ledezma, APLC complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Within 16 court days of hearing, plus additional days to respond based on manner of service, Ledezma, APLC filed Judicial Council forms MC-051 to MC-053 with the Court and served the same on Plaintiffs and Defendant Brighton Convalescent, LLC. A review of the three Judicial Council forms for each Plaintiff shows that the forms are complete and properly filled out.

Second, there is a valid reason for withdrawal: “An irreparable breakdown of attorney-client relationship has occurred that makes it impossible for attorney to represent this client.”

Third, because there is no trial date in this action, and because Plaintiffs and Defendant Brighton Convalescent, LLC have not filed oppositions to this motion, no prejudice or delay arises sufficient to deny Ledezma, APLC’s motions.

III. Conclusion

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [CRS# 8475] is GRANTED.

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel [CRS# 4947] is GRANTED.