Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV28147, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28147    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Graciela Estrada’s Counsel Dag Law Firm, APC’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff Graciela Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Markus Weinhart (“Weinhart”) for dangerous condition of public property, negligence and premises liability.

On May 11, 2022, the City filed an answer. On November 4, 2022, Weinhart filed an answer.

On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Dag Law Firm, APC, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on November 22, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to December 8, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 24, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Dag Law Firm, APC, 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 counsel-client relationship. Counsel has indicated that Plaintiff was served via mail, as confirmed by telephone. Counsel submitted proof of service on all parties, including Plaintiff. Counsel has complied with all requirements. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s 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 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.