Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV20759, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20759    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Un Chu Ko’s Counsel Wayne Joyner’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Un Chu Ko (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Zion Market (“Defendant”) for premises liability.

On July 27, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Wayne Joyner, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on February 10, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for November 13, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Wayne Joyner, 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 and MC-053 form. However, counsel has not provided an adequate reason for the reasons for this motion, only stating that Plaintiff has not responded to his request to withdraw. Counsel needs to provide a reason as to why he is making the request to withdraw. Additionally, counsel did not submit a proof of service on Plaintiff, but rather a fax sent to Plaintiff. This is not sufficient to meet the proof of service requirements. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Counsel's 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.