Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV28923, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28923    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Arutyan Kazaryan’s Counsel Carla Guidice-Hu's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff Jason Behnke (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Zhirayr Mikayelyan (“Mikalyelyan”), Arutyan Kazaryan (“Kazaryan”), Amazon.com LLC (“Amazon”), Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon Services”) and Amazon Flex for negligence.

On September 30, 2021, Mikayelyan and Kazaryan filed an answer. On October 14, 2021, Amazon Services filed an answer.

On June 10, 2022, Kazaryan’s counsel, Carla Guidice-Hu, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on July 7, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 5, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Kazaryan’s counsel, Carla Guidice-Hu, requests to be relieved as counsel.

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, form. Counsel has provided a declaration stating that Kazaryan’s coverage only applies to vehicle usage outside of employment or business purposes; as the subject vehicle was being used for employment purposes, Kazaryan’s coverage does not apply. Current counsel has been assigned based on Kazaryan’s automobile coverage.

Counsel has not submitted a complete MC-052 or MC-053 form, as required by the CRC. In addition, there is no proof of service on counsel’s client, Kazaryan—only on the other appearing parties. As such, counsel has not complied with all requirements for a granting of this motion. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Kazaryan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED.

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

Counsel for Kazaryan 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.