Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV15835, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15835    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants David Duran Venegas and Maria Duran’s Counsel Armin Abazari, Esq. And SOCAL Injury Lawyers’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Jose Manuel Naranjo (“Jose”), Esmeralda Aguilar (“Aguilar”), Juan Naranjo (“Juan”) and Daniel Naranjo (“Daniel”) filed this action against Defendants Jose de Jesus Garcia Negrete (“Negrete”) and David Duran Venegas (“Venegas”) for negligence. 

On May 20, 2021, Negrete filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Venegas for indemnity, comparative contribution and declaratory relief. On February 3, 2022, Venegas filed an answer. 

On December 3, 2021, the clerk entered default against Venegas. On October 12, 2022, the Court dismissed Venegas, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request. On January 10, 2023, the Court dismissed Negrete, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request.

On May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Venegas and Maria Duran (“Duran”) filed an action against Defendant Negrete for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On May 20, 2021, Negrete filed an answer.

The actions were consolidated on June 22, 2022.

Trial is current scheduled for November 4, 2022. 

On November 7, 2022, Venegas and Duran’s counsel, Armin Abazari, Esq. And SOCAL Injury Lawyers, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on January 10, 2023. The Court continued the hearing to January 19, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 11, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Venegas and Duran’s counsel, Armin Abazari, Esq. And SOCAL Injury Lawyers, 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. Counsel has provided a declaration stating that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Counsel has indicated that clients were served via mail; although counsel did not confirm the address, counsel attempted to do so by calling client’s last known number, contacting persons familiar with the client, and texting the client. Counsel did not submit proof of service on clients or on any other parties—only a later notice of hearing. There is no indication that the relevant papers were ever served.  The Court continues the hearing on the motion so that counsel can submit proof of service.

CONCLUSION

Counsel's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to February 1, 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.