Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV29279, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV29279 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Maria Pulido’s Counsel Robert J. Ounjian and Joseph P. Shirazi’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Pulido (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Super Center Concepts, Inc. (“SCC”), Superior Grocers (“Grocers”), Florentino Ahumada (“Florentino”) and Yvette Ahumada (“Yvette”) for general negligence, motor vehicle negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Randolph-Huntington Partners, LTD., (“RHP”), RHA Partners, LTD (“RHA”) and Comstock Crosser & Associates Developments Company (“Comstock”).
On October 14, 2021, RHP and RHA filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Florentino for implied indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.
On November 16, 2021, SCC filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Florentino, Yvette, RHP and RHA for implied indemnity, contribution, apportionment, declaratory relief, negligence, breach of contract and express indemnity. SCC dismissed all parties without prejudice. On June 13, 2022, the Court dismissed SCC, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On May 18, 2022, the Court dismissed Florentino and Yvette with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On June 28, 2022, Comstock filed an answer.
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Robert J. Ounjian and Joseph P. Shirazi, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on September 20, 2022.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 6, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff’s counsel, Robert J. Ounjian and Joseph P. Shirazi, requests 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 form. Counsel has provided a declaration stating that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship and there are potential ethical conflicts. Counsel has indicated that Plaintiff was served via mail at his current address, confirmed by conversation in the last 30 days. Counsel submitted proof of service on all parties, in addition. As such, the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Counsel for Plaintiffs’ Motions to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. Counsel for Plaintiffs 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.