Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV24386, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24386    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Maya Hussain’s Counsel Raymond D. McElfish and McElfish Law Firm’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Maya Hussain (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Rio Vista Elementary School (“Rio Vista”) for negligent entrustment of dangerous instrumentality, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent hiring & retention of employees, negligence per se, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On March 14, 2022, the County filed an answer. On June 20, 2022, LAUSD filed an answer. On July 18, 2022, the County was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Raymond D. McElfish and McElfish Law Firm, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on September 8, 2022. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 23, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Raymond D. McElfish and McElfish Law Firm, 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 submitted completed MC-051 and MC-053 forms. Counsel provided a declaration stating that there has been a breakdown in the attorney client relationship. Counsel submitted proof of service on all relevant parties. Counsel has complied with all requirements. However, counsel merely provided a declaration rather than a MC-052 form, meaning the Court does not know if Plaintiff was served at her current or last known address, and how the address was confirmed. As such, the Court continues the hearing on the motion so that counsel may submit the required form.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to October 4, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

               Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiff 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.