Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV11324, Date: 2022-10-10 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: 20STCV11324 Hearing Date: October 10, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 10, 2022
20STCV11324
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Henry Haddad, Counsel for Plaintiff Myra Lerma
DECISION
The motion is granted.
Counsel is to serve Plaintiff with the signed MC-053 and file proof of service within five court days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice.
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.
On September 13, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Counsel to cure deficiencies identified with his motion.
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. On September 13, 2022, the Court ordered Counsel to file a form MC-053. Counsel filed a form MC-053 on September 14, 2022. Counsel has cured the deficiencies previously identified.
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).)
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 and/or request a continuance before trial. 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.)
