Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC645016, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC645016    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff’s Counsel Hirad Dagostar & Azadeh Gilbert, Dagostar Law LLP’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff Graciela Navarro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Café Club Fais Do Do, Inc. (“Cafe”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the Complaint to include Defendant Steven Yablok (“Yablok”).

On April 17, 2017, Cafe filed an answer. On February 22, 2019, Defendants filed an answer.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Hirad Dagostar & Azadeh Gilbert, Dagostar Law LLP, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on July 7, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on this motion to September 7, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 5, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Hirad Dagostar & Azadeh Gilbert, Dagostar Law LLP, 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

At the previous hearing on this motion, Plaintiff informed the Court that she was unable to contact Plaintiff’s counsel as she had lost her phone and a phone number was improperly recorded. Parties were ordered to meet and confer to see if they could reach resolution on this matter. The Court has received no documentation indicating parties have reached a resolution either way. As such, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to provide additional time to meet and confer.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Plaintiffs’ Motions to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to October 5, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

               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.