Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV46782, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV46782 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff
Miguel Ortiz’s Counsel The Dominguez Firm’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
Having considered the moving papers,
the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
December 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Aura E. Mijangos (“Mijangos”) and Miguel Ortiz
(“Ortiz”) filed this action against Defendant Evelyn Lopez (“Defendant”) for
motor vehicle and general negligence.
On
July 1, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On
February 9, 2023, Ortiz’s Counsel, The Dominguez Firm, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on March 13, 2023.
Trial
is currently scheduled for June 22, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Miguel
Ortiz’s counsel, The Dominguez Firm, request to be relieved as counsel for Ortiz.
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 forms. Counsel has provided
a declaration stating that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the
attorney-client relationship as Ortiz passed away; counsel indicated that they
had conducted multiple skip traces in order to locate next of kin or other
possible associations, with no results. Counsel provided proof of service on
Ortiz’s attempted address and on Defendant—there is no proof of service on
Mijangos. However, counsel is representing Mijangos, meaning that would require
they serve themselves. Proof of service is sufficient. The Court grants the
motion.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ 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
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.
The
parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further
instructions.