Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV09345 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Counsel is ordered to provide notice and to serve a copy of the signed MC-053 on Plaintiff. Proof of service of the MC-053 must be filed within five court days after the date of this order.

Counsel is reminded that the Court's Ruling and Attorney's
relief as Counsel of record for client is not effective until Proof of Service
of the (MC-053) Order signed by the Court upon the client is filed in this
action. Until then, counsel continues to
be counsel of record. Cal. Rules of
Court 3.1362(e).

On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff Ruben Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability arising from a slip-and-fall that occurred on March 21, 2017.

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff or in the Alternative to Continue Trial and all Trial Related Dates. Trial was continued to October 25, 2022. Counsel was ordered to properly file his appearance.

On July 21, 2022, Counsel Irving Pedroza filed his motion to be relieved as counsel, which was continued to September 9, 2022 to allow Counsel time to correct deficiencies.

Counsel seeks a court order relieving him as counsel of record for Plaintiff Ruben Ramos on the grounds that the attorney-client relationship has broken down. No opposition to this motion has been filed.

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), 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 CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 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, 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. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation. (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.) There is a compelling reason when the withdrawal would prejudice the client, the other parties in the action, or a third party. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406; Linn v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1926) 79 Cal.App. 721, 725.)

Counsel filed a new MC-053, MC-052, and MC-051 on August 25, 2022. Counsel provided an address and phone number in Item number 6 and checked box 5a on the MC-053 in compliance with the Court’s August 4, 2022 order.