Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC722435, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722435    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 28

            On October 21, 2022, Dang Law Firm, APC filed the instant Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.

            An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled to proceed on December 22, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Dang Law Firm, APC (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).)

DISCUSSION

            The Court has reviewed the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052), Order Granting Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053), and accompanying Proof of Service, and concludes that Plaintiff’s Counsel has complied with the whole of the requirements enumerated within California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  The Court additionally concludes Plaintiff’s Counsel’s withdrawal from the present action will not cause prejudice to Plaintiff, considering this action has settled and there is no upcoming trial date.  Accordingly, the Court finds withdrawal may be permitted, as requested.

CONCLUSION

            Dang Law Firm, APC’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivision (e), Plaintiff’s Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record only upon the filing of a proof of service which evidences Plaintiff was served with a signed copy of the Court’s Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (e).)

            Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff’s 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.