Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV40947, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40947    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

On December 27, 2022, Thad M. Scroggins, Esq. (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Engage BDR, LLC (“Client”).

Counsel has filed a form MC051 and MC-052 as to each Client and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.  

Counsel states that there has been a break down in the attorney-client relationship because Client has failed to sign a formal retainer for this case and/or agree to pay Counsel for legal work for several months.

The MC-052 form fails to state whether Counsel served Clients via mail at Clients’ last known mailing address or whether Counsel confirmed Client’s address as current within 30 days of the motion.  Rather, counsel merely states that he served David Batista through email on behalf of Client.  This is improper.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that Counsel confirm Client’s address “within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.”  Rule 3.1362 further provides that “[m]erely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.”  (Id. at (d)(2).) 

Further, Counsel does not assert that Counsel has confirmed that the address is current by any traditional means of “mail, return receipt requested,” “telephone,” or “conversation”.  Accordingly, Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the address or email address listed on the proof of service filing is indeed current as of 30 days prior to the filing of Counsel’s motion to be relieved.

Rule 3.1362’s requirement that Client’s address be confirmed as current within 30 days of Counsel’s motion to be relieved is not a mere technicality without a purpose.  If the Court grants Counsel’s motion to be relieved without requiring a current, working address for Client, neither the Court nor the other parties will have the ability to serve Client with pleadings, motions, and orders, which implicates due process concerns.

Moreover, the proposed order on form MC-053 is incomplete

Accordingly, the instant motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED as Counsel has failed to follow multiple mandatory requirements to be relieved as Counsel.

DATED: January 20, 2023                                         ___________________________

                                                                        Elaine Lu

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court