Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00528, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:



1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.



2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and



3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.



If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 



TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 22CMCV00528    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

JAMES THOMAS,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

DARIUS MICHAEL CLARKE; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,

 

                        Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     

CASE NO: 22CMCV00528

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. B

DATE: March 2, 2023

TIME:  8:30 A.M.

 

COMPLAINT FILED: November 9, 2022

TRIAL DATE: None Set Yet

 

I.       BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff James Thomas (“Plaintiff”), filed the Complaint on November 9, 2022, alleging that Plaintiff was a passenger on a city bus operated by Defendant Darius Michael Clarke when the bus collided with a vehicle and Plaintiff suffered injuries. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 5, 6.)

 

II.       MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

            Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. from the Law Offices of Jacques Beugelmans, counsel for Plaintiff, brings this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2), and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. alleges that there has been a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship which makes it impossible for Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. to represent Plaintiff in this matter.

 

III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2), an attorney may be changed by court order upon application of either a client or attorney, after notice from one to another. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, a motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration explaining the grounds for the motion and demonstrating that the address for service of the client is either the current residence of the client confirmed within the last 30 days or the last known address of the client that was unable to be confirmed within 30 days after reasonable efforts to confirm.

 

IV.       DISCUSSION

            Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. properly filed and served Plaintiff with the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (See Proof of Service attached to Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.) The papers were sent to Plaintiff by mail to “14300 Telegraph Road Whittier, California 90604” and to opposing counsel at “3020 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena, California 91107.” (Ibid.) Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. declares that the address of Plaintiff was confirmed within the past 30 days. (Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration of Jacques Beugelmans, Esq., ¶ 3(b).)

            Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. declares that the reason for this Motion is that “There has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship which makes it impossible for Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. to represent plaintiff, James Thomas, in connection with this litigation.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) Neither Plaintiff nor opposing counsel raised any objections to this withdrawal or alleged that significant prejudice would result from the withdrawal. Because no major prejudice is anticipated due to this withdrawal and because Jacques Beugelmans, Esq. declares there has been a collapse of the attorney-client relationship, the Court GRANTS this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

 

V.       CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

 

 

Dated: March 2, 2023                                                 __________________________________

                                                                                                Judge of the Superior Court