Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV45893, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45893 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
September 29, 2022
20STCV45893
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Vadim Feldshtein, counsel for Plaintiff Adan Perez
DECISION
The hearing is continued to permit counsel time to correct the deficiencies noted below.
The parties are to appear at the hearing to discuss a continued hearing date.
Counsel to provide notice to Plaintiff.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December 1, 2018. Plaintiff Adan Perez filed his Complaint against Defendant Alicia M. Malard and Does 1 to 20 on December 1, 2020.
On August 12, 2022, Vadim Feldshtein, counsel for Plaintiff Adan Perez, filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Counsel Vadim Feldshtein seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel claims there are conflicts of interest that cannot be waived, making proper representation of Plaintiff’s interests impossible.
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 Adan Perez. Counsel claims it is impossible to represent Plaintiff’s interests because of conflicts of interest that cannot be waived. (MC-052 Item #2.) The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to be relieved as counsel given the conflicts of interest in this case. Counsel served Plaintiff by mail at his current address which Counsel confirmed by conversation and telephone within 30 days of the filing of this motion. (MC-052 Item #3.)
Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), a Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052), and a Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053) 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).)
Item #5 of form MC-052 is blank. Counsel must include the OSC re: Dismissal set for November 28, 2023.
Item #6 on form MC-053 includes Plaintiff’s address, but not his telephone number.
Plaintiff would not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a final status conference scheduled for December 2, 2022. Plaintiff has sufficient time to engage new counsel before the next hearing in this matter or to request a continuance.