Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 19STCV22939, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV22939, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

        If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Case Number: 19STCV22939 Hearing Date: May 25, 2023 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Christian Ronnie’s Counsel Norman Gregory Fernandez’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff Christian Ronnie (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Las Cabanas de San Pedro Restaurant (“Restaurant”) for general negligence, negligence per se and battery. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Victoria’s Group, LLC (“Victoria’s”).

Dismissal was entered on July 14, 2021, but later vacated. The Court dismissed Restaurant, without prejudice, on October 13, 2022.

On July 8, 2022, the clerk entered default against Victoria’s. The Court entered judgment against Victoria’s on April 17, 2023.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Norman Gregory Fernandez, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on May 25, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Norman Gregory Fernandez, requests to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating 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) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

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. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

Counsel has submitted completed MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053 forms. Counsel has provided a declaration stating that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Counsel indicated they served Alston at their last known address via mail, confirmed by intake form, and e-mail. Counsel submitted proof of service on Plaintiff.

The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and generally grants said request so long as it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. Here, the Court finds that granting this relief based on the facts provided would disrupt the process of justice. Default judgment has been entered against the only remaining Defendant. All substantive work is effectively over. The Court is unsure as to why counsel is asking to be relieved at this point in the process, as an “irreconcilable breakdown,” should have little impact at this point. Counsel may appear before the Court to offer additional information, but based on the packet alone, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED.

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.