Judge: Daniel S Belsky, Case: 37-2021-00012350-PR-LA-CTL, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 31, 2024

02/01/2024  02:00:00 PM  504 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Daniel S. Belsky

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Letters Of Administration Motion Hearing (Probate) 37-2021-00012350-PR-LA-CTL ESTATE OF DONALD V. GARGANERA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record, 11/20/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the Court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED as moot as to attorney Steven Bliss. (See ROA 53, Substitution of Attorney filed Jan. 6, 2023.) The motion is CONTINUED to February 29, 2024, at 2 p.m. as to attorney Kitty Baker.

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16, 'prohibits an attorney from withdrawing from pending matters without court permission, where permission to withdraw is required, or from withdrawing until appropriate steps have been taken to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client. CCP § 284 provides that an attorney may withdraw from an action, before or after final judgment, upon the consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court. Implicit in these provisions is the conclusion that an attorney is entitled to withdraw, either with the consent of his or her client, or without that consent, if withdrawal is approved by the court.' (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Here, attorney Bliss and Baker represent Cindy Lou Sada, who was appointed as the administrator of the decedent's estate. (See ROA 18, Order for Probate.) The caption page of the withdrawal motion lists attorneys Bliss and Baker as counsel of record.

The substitution of attorney filed on January 6, 2023 (ROA 53) is signed by attorney Bliss only. Thus, attorney Bliss was effectively relieved as counsel of record under CCP § 284(1) upon the filing of the substitution of attorney form.

However, as to attorney Baker, there is no substitution of attorney filed, and it is unclear from the motion papers whether attorney Baker is also seeking withdrawal since only attorney Bliss is mentioned. Thus, as to attorney Baker, the motion is CONTINUED for lack of proper service on the parties.

The Notice of Hearing (ROA 58) does not indicate service of the Proposed Order (Form MC-053) on the client as required under CRC 3.1362(d). Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED to February 29, 2024, at 2 p.m., for proper service of all the required forms on all the parties entitled to notice, and for counsel to file proof of the same.

Attorney Bliss is directed to serve written notice of ruling on all parties in accordance with the provisions Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059489 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ESTATE OF DONALD V. GARGANERA [IMAGED]  37-2021-00012350-PR-LA-CTL of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059489