Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV40872, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40872    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
January 20, 2023
20STCV40872

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs Angelo Zapata and Catherine Lehman filed by Hesam Yazdanpanah

DECISION

The motion is granted.

Counsel to serve the signed MC-053 on Plaintiffs and all other parties. 

Since Plaintiffs’ residence has not been confirmed, in addition to serving Plaintiffs at their last known address, Counsel must also serve Plaintiffs by delivering signed copies of the MC-053 to the clerk of the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1011(b)(3). The papers must be enclosed in an envelope addressed to each party in the care of the clerk pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.252(a). The information required by California Rule of Court 3.252(b) shall be provided on the back of each envelope.   

The Court's Ruling and
Attorney's relief as Counsel of record for client is not effective until Proof
of Service of the 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).


The Moving Party is ordered to give notice. Proof of service to be filed with the Court within five court days after the date of this order.


Background

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in November 2018. Plaintiffs Angelo Zapata and Catherine Lehman filed their Complaint against Juan de Dios Mocinos Mora.

On December 16, 2022, Hesam Yazdanpanah filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Counsel Hesam Yazdanpanah seeks to be relieved as counsel for both Plaintiffs. Counsel cites a breakdown in attorney-client communication.

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 Plaintiffs Angelo Zapata and Catherine Lehman.

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 Plaintiffs by mail at their last known address and could not confirm that the address was current. (MC-052 Item #3.) Counsel made reasonable efforts to confirm the address by mailing the motion papers to Plaintiffs’ last known address, calling their last known phone number, and skip tracing using Plaintiffs’ last known addresses, driver’s license, and date of birth. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a final status conference set for August 3, 2023. Trial is set for August 17, 2023. There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to engage new counsel before trial. The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw. (MC-052, Item #2.)

Conclusion

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs Angelo Zapata and Catherin Lehman is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice.