Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV36973, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36973    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jennifer Manzano’s Counsel Samuel Ogbogu’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Jennifer Manzano (“Manzano”) and Esmeralda Sanchez (“Sanchez”) filed this action against Defendant Enzo Mattucci (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On July 9, 2021, Defendant filed his answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Foes 1 through 25 for equitable/implied indemnity, apportionment and contribution and declaratory relief.

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Samuel Ogbogu, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on June 14, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 12, 2022. Counsel submitted additional documents for consideration on June 14, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Samuel Ogbogu, requests to be relieved as counsel for Manzano.

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

The Court previously continued the hearing on this motion as counsel mistakenly served the motion on Jennifer “Mendoza” rather than Jennifer Manzano. Counsel has yet to submit a new proof of service of this motion; counsel submitted a new MC-053 form, with no attached proof of service, and proof of service of the ruling on counsel’s other motion. As such, counsel has yet to submit proof of service. The Court continues the hearing on the motion so that counsel can submit proper proof of service.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Plaintiffs’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to August 23, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Court House.

             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.