Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC681064, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC681064    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Barbara Baker’s Counsel Neer Lerner and Alexander Zeesman’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Barbara Baker (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) for public entity liability and public employee liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Downtown Los Angeles Property Owners Association (“DLAPOA”) and LA Fashion Business Improvement District (“LAFBID”).             On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed the FAC for general negligence and premises liability.

On July 1, 2021, the City filed an answer and an amended Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-25 for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.

On January 18, 2022, the Court dismissed DLAPOA with prejudice.

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Neer Lerner and Alexander Zeesman, filed Motions to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on September 8, 2022. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 23, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Neer Lerner and Alexander Zeesman, 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 submitted completed MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053 forms. Counsel provided declarations stating that there has been a breakdown in the attorney client relationship. Counsel has indicated that Plaintiff was served at her last known address, which was confirmed via conversation in the last 30 days. Counsel submitted proof of service on all relevant parties. Counsel has complied with all requirements. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED. Counsel for Plaintiff 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 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.