Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV06322, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV06322 Hearing Date: September 9, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
September 9, 2022
21STCV06322
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant filed by Duncan Justice, Brian J. Triplett, and Michael E. Gallagher
DECISION
The matter is continued so that Counsel may file and serve a corrected MC-053 listing all future court dates. In addition, the MC-053 must list the correct department, Department 30, and must list the full address of the courthouse for all future proceedings.
The parties are to appear on the date of the hearing to set a continued hearing date.
The corrected MC-053 must be filed at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.
Counsel to provide notice, including to Defendant. Counsel must 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 February 2019. Plaintiff Derrick Mingo was a passenger in an uber which Defendant Gabriel Arthur Sanchez allegedly struck when making a U-turn. Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 17, 2021.
On May 16, 2022, Duncan Justice, Brian Triplett, and Michael E. Gallagher filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Justice, Triplett, and Gallagher (“Counsel”) seek to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. Counsel cites an inability to communicate with Defendant and states Defendant does not understand or want to understand the purpose of their retention.
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 Defendant Gabriel Arthur Sanchez.
Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052), and Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053) on all 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 Defendant at his last known address. (MC-052, Item #3(a).) Counsel has been unable to confirm Defendant’s address or locate a more current address after calling the client’s last known phone number. (MC-052, Item #3(b)(2).) Counsel attests that they hired a private investigator who personally delivered two letters to the home of Defendant’s girlfriend, who told the investigator that Defendant would receive the letters after returning from work. (MC-052, Item #3(b)(1)(d).) Counsel has made reasonable efforts
The next hearing in this matter is a hearing on a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint scheduled for November 29, 2022. Plaintiff filed that motion after Counsel filed this motion to be relieved as counsel. MC-052, Item #6 states trial is set for August 3, 2022. Trial was continued on May 31, 2022, after this motion was filed. Trial is now set for May 11, 2023. Counsel properly noted the remaining actions in this case at the time the motion was filed. (MC-052 Item #5; MC-053 Items #7, 8.) There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to engage new counsel before trial. The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw as counsel given the breakdown of the attorney-client communication. (MC-052, Item #2.)
