Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV23249, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23249    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Monico Francisco Gonzalez Rivas’s Counsel Rafii & Associates, P.C.’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff Monico Francisco Gonzalez Rivas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants William Alexander Lopez (“Lopez”) and Yesenia G. Matamoros (“Matamoros”) for negligence and premises liability.

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel, Rafii & Associates, P.C., filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on December 7, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 21, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Rafii & Associates, P.C., 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 communication. Counsel has indicated that Plaintiff was served via mail, confirmed via mail, return receipt requested. Counsel did not provide proof of service on Plaintiff, though, which is required by CRC rule 3.1362. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED.

               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.