Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV08122, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08122    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant A Plus Transportation Corp.’s Counsel Morgenstern Law Group's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff Edward Hakobjanyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Odilla Ruiz (“Ruiz”), A Plus Transportation Corp (“APTC”), and Alliance for College Ready Public Schools ("ACRPS”) for negligence, statutory liability; and negligent hiring and supervision.

On December 14, 2022, ACRPS filed an answer to the Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant APTC and Transtudent LLC (“Transtudent”).

On March 14, 2023, APTC’s counsel, the Morgenstern Law Group filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on April 12, 2023.

Trial is set for February 28, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUEST

APTC’s counsel, the Morgenstern Law Group, request to be relieved as counsel for APTC.

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 APTC’s business license was suspended on October 1, 2021; it has yet to be reinstated as of the time of this filing. It is unethical for counsel to represent a suspended entity, providing good cause for the Court to grant the motion. (City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Government (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568, 577, 577, 578.) Counsel has indicated that APTC was served via email. Counsel filed proof of service on all parties that have appeared in the action, other than the other parties still represented by moving counsel.

The trial date is currently set for February 28, 2024, meaning ATPC has sufficient time to cure its license suspension and secure new counsel. Additionally, there is an upcoming for leave to intervene on behalf of ATPC. Therefore, ATPC will not be prejudiced by the granting of this motion.

Based on the above, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. Counsel will be relieved upon filing proof of service upon the client of the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053).

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.