Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV01913 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by John Mutasek II and Thomas O’Neil, Counsel for Plaintiffs Valencia Bowdrey and Krystal Jones

The motion is granted.

Counsel is to file proof of service of the signed MC-053 on both Plaintiffs as well as on all other parties within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2019. Plaintiffs Valencia Bowdrey and Krystal Jones filed their Complaint against Defendant Chun Fu on January 19, 2021.

On October 13, 2022, John Mutasek II and Thomas O’Neil filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.

On November 16, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Counsel to file an amended MC-053 and provide notice to Plaintiffs of a new hearing date.

Counsel John Mutasek II and Thomas O’Neil seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel cite a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship which made representation impossible because Counsel lost contact with Plaintiffs.

“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).)

On November 16, 2022, the Court continued the OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint to March 17, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on this matter to allow Counsel to file an amended MC-053 and provide Plaintiffs with notice of the new OSC hearing date.

Counsel filed the amended MC-053 on November 17, 2022 and attached proof of service showing the amended notice was served on Plaintiffs at their address.

Counsels’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs Valencia Bowdrey and Krystal Jones is GRANTED.