Plaintiff Jimmy Ramos’s Counsel Frank Hutting’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel 

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

 

BACKGROUND 

On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Jimmy Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Amin Pishafken (“Pishafken”) for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier”).  

On December 3, 2021, Pishafken filed an answer. On January 19, 2023, Rasier filed an answer. 

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Frank Hutting, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on April 10, 2023.  

Trial is currently scheduled for August 2, 2023.  

 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Frank Hutting, request 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 a 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 has indicated that Plaintiff was served at his last known address, confirmed by conversation. Counsel filed a proof of service on Plaintiff but did not file a proof service on either Defendant. Counsel must serve all parties who have appeared in this action; the Court continues the motion so that counsel can submit proof of service on all parties.  

 

CONCLUSION 

Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to April 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  

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.