Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 23STCV22803, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

(Plaintiffs, Abigail Yaneth Lopez Tulul, Eduardo Rodrigo Lopez Tulul, Roberto Lopez Lopez, Manuela Tulul Lopez)

Tentative Ruling: Counsel’s motions are denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Abigail Yaneth Lopez Tulul, Eduardo Rodrigo Lopez Tulul, Roberto Lopez Lopez, and Manuela Tulul Lopez filed this habitability action against their landlord and associated entities on September 20, 2023. Plaintiffs have been represented by counsel Friedman & Chapman, LLP throughout this suit. Counsel now moves to be relieved. The motion is unopposed.

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398.)

Rule of Court 3.1362 prescribes the three mandatory forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) that counsel must use when moving to be relieved. Subdivision (d) of the rule states the requirements for service: service must be made on the moving counsel’s client and all parties who have appeared. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(d).) Service may be made personally or by electronic or regular mail. (Ibid.) If served by mail, counsel must submit a declaration attesting that either (1) the address is current; or (2) the address is the last address known to counsel, and counsel made reasonable efforts to locate a more current address within thirty (30) days of filing his, her, or their motion. (Id., subd. (d)(1).) Counsel serving electronically must attest that the client’s email address is current. (Id., subd. (d)(2).) “Current”, as used in the rule, means the address was confirmed within 30 days of filing the motion. (Ibid.)

Here, Counsel have not attested to verifying their client’s last known address. Although the declaration submitted in support of each motion indicates they unsuccessfully attempted to contact their clients, it does not indicate specific attempts to verify an address. And counsel did not check any box in paragraph 3(b) of their declaration to indicate how the address was verified.

Also, the Court is not convinced that withdrawal was warranted at the time the motion was filed. Based on counsel’s declaration, their client expressed an interest in dismissing the case, and in response they moved to withdraw. It seems that dismissing the case would have been the more sensible course.

The motion is denied, without prejudice for counsel to refile explaining what efforts have been made to verify their client’s address and why withdrawal is now warranted, with the benefit of several months’ perspective.