Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV01565, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01565    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

SARA VAN HORN, et al., 

 

         vs.

 

THE WOMAN’S CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, et al.

 Case No.:  23STCV01565

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  March 8, 2024

 

Defendants The Woman’s Club of Hollywood, California’s and Rosemary Lord’s Counsel, Karen A. Rooney’s, Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

 

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Sara Van Horn (“Sara”) and Patrick Van Horn (“Patrick”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their operative Complaint against Defendants The Woman’s Club of Hollywood, California (“WCH”) and Rosemary Lord (“Lord”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  On July 17, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer.

On February 9, 2024, Defendants’ counsel, Karen A. Rooney, filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Trial is set for July 8, 2024.

 

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 completed MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 forms.[1] Counsel has provided a declaration stating a there is a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  (See Decl. of Rooney.)  Counsel has indicated that Defendants were served with copies of the motion papers filed with the declaration at Defendants’ last known address and confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current by exchanging email at Defendants’ last known addresses and by conversation.

 

Conclusion

Defendants’ counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

Counsel will be relieved upon filing proof of service on their client of the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053).

Moving Party to give notice.

 

Dated:  March _____, 2024

                                                                            


Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

 



[1] The Court notes Rooney’s proposed order does not include both Defendants’ names on the order.

 

The Court further notes Rooney’s motion erroneously identifies the client, presumably in reference to WCH as “a corporation,” thereby ignoring Lord and her status as an individual.