Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV06524, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06524    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Antonio Cervantes’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Tamara Gomez (“Gomez”) and Salvador Salinas Calderon (“Calderon”) filed this action against Defendants Eduardo Martinez (“Martinez”), RRM Properties, LTD (“RRM”) and Robertson’s Transport, LTD (“Robertson’s”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On April 28, 2022, the clerk entered default against Martinez. On June 27, 2022, Robertson’s filed an answer. On September 1, 2022, Martinez filed an answer after parties agreed to set aside default.

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel, Antonio Cervantes, filed Motions to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on December 9, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 22, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Antonio Cervantes, request to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.

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. However, Counsel has provided insufficient information as to the “reasons for the motion.” Counsel merely stated “Communication. (Attorney reserves to address in-camera.)” This is insufficient information upon which the Court can grant this motion. Counsel also did not submit proof of service on all parties who have appeared in this action. Counsel provided proof of service on Plaintiffs, but not on Martinez or Robertson’s.

The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Antonio Cervantes’ 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.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.