Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV27605, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
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.
Case Number: 19STCV27605 Hearing Date: October 28, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 28, 2022
19STCV27605
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Eric H. Godoy and SoCal Injury Lawyers, Counsel for Plaintiff Urides Roblero
DECISION
The Court intends to grant the motion once Counsel has filed an amended MC-053 including the correct FSC and Trial dates.
The parties are to appear at the hearing to discuss a continued hearing date.
The amended MC-053 must be filed at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.
Counsel to provide notice to Plaintiff Roblero and all opposing parties and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2017. Plaintiffs Odilia Vazquez Bamaca and Urides Roblero filed their Complaint against Defendant Armando Moya on August 6, 2019.
On September 21, 2022, Eric H. Godoy of SoCal Injury Lawyers filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Counsel Eric H. Godoy of SoCal Injury Lawyers seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel cites a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
Opposing Arguments
None.
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
Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Urides Roblero.
Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), an Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053), and a Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052) on the appropriate forms, as outlined within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (e).)
Counsel served Plaintiff by mail at his last known address and was unable to confirm the address was current or locate a more current address. (MC-052 Item #3; Lau Decl., ¶4.) Counsel made reasonable efforts to confirm Roblero’s address by mailing the papers to his last known address with return receipt, calling his last known telephone number, contacting Plaintiff Odilia Vazquez Bamaca, and performing searches on the internet, social media, telephone directories, and obituaries.
Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a final status conference scheduled for February 16, 2023. Form MC-052 previously stated the FSC was scheduled for September 26, 2022 and trial was scheduled for September 30, 2022. The FSC and trial were rescheduled by stipulation after this motion was filed. Trial is now set for March 3, 2023. There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to engage new counsel before trial and/or to request a continuance if needed. The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw as counsel given the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (MC-052, Item #2.)
