Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC722360, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722360    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Ricardo Samana’s Counsel Michael G. Steiniger’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff Ricardo Samana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Andrew K Wanzenberg (“Defendant”).

On October 7, 2021, the Court dismissed the action, without prejudice. The Court vacated the dismissal on August 16, 2022.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel, Michael G. Steiniger, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on February 24, 2023.

There is no currently scheduled trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mihael G. Steiniger, 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, MC-052 and MC-053 forms. However, counsel has not provided adequate reason to grant this motion. Counsel provided that he has “closed [his] practice and [has] retired.” However, there is no indication as to why this could not be accomplished via a substitution of counsel form. As far as the Court is aware, there has not been a breakdown in the relationship or communication between counsel and Plaintiff. 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.