Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV15114, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV15114 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 4, 2023
21STCV15114
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Stephan Airapetian, Counsel for Plaintiff Francisco Pascual Baltazar.
DECISION
The motion is granted.
The Court will check Box 5a on the MC-053. Additionally, at Item 7a of the form, the Court will replace the date of 4/4/23 with the date of 4/18/2023 and time of 1:30 p.m. with the time of 3:00 p.m. Also, at Item 7b, the words motion to be relieved as counsel will be replaced with Informal Discovery Conference.
Counsel to serve the signed MC-053 on Plaintiff and all other parties. Proof of service to be filed with the Court within five court days after the date of this order.
Since Plaintiff’s residence has not been confirmed, in addition to serving Plaintiff at their last known address, Counsel must also serve Plaintiff by delivering a signed copy 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 Plaintiff 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 the envelope.
Background
This is an action for premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in August 2020. Plaintiff Francisco Pascual Baltazar filed his Complaint against Walmart, Inc. on April 21, 2021.
On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming Tina Sims as a Defendant in this action.
On March 10, 2023, Stephan Airapetian, Counsel for Plaintiff, filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Counsel Stephan Airapetian seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel cites a breakdown in communication with Plaintiff. Counsel has not been able to contact Plaintiff.
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 Francisco Pascual Baltazar.
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 Plaintiff by mail at his last known address. (MC-052 Item #3.) Counsel could not confirm that his address was current and made reasonable efforts to confirm the address by mailing the motion papers with return receipt requested, calling his last-known telephone number, performing a public records search and hiring a private investigator. (MC-052 Item #3(b)(2); Aghamalyan Decl., ¶¶14-23; Arapetian Decl., ¶¶5-7.)
Plaintiff would not be prejudiced if counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a Final Status Conference set for October 9, 2023. Trial is set for October 23, 2023. There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel and/or request a continuance before trial. The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw. (MC-052, Item #2.)
