Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV11324, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11324 Hearing Date: September 13, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
September 13, 2022
20STCV11324
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Henry Haddad, Counsel for Plaintiff Myra Lerma
DECISION
The motion is continued so that Counsel may file and serve a MC-053.
The parties are to appear on the date of the hearing to discuss a continued hearing date.
The MC-053 must be filed at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.
Moving party is ordered to provide notice 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 motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in March 2018. Plaintiff Myra Lerma filed her Complaint against Defendants Ashley Lauren Hyde and Natalie Hyde on March 20, 2020.
On August 2, 2022, Henry Haddad filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Counsel Henry Haddad seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel cites a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship caused by a breakdown in communication, disagreements, and lack of cooperation that have made it difficult to represent Plaintiff in this matter.
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 Myra Lerma.
Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051) and 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 failed to file a Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053). Consequently, there is no evidence Plaintiff was served. Counsel must file and serve form MC-053 before the Court can grant his motion.
Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a final status conference scheduled for December 21, 2022. There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to engage new counsel before trial or to request a continuance of the trial date. 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.)
