Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

July 26, 2022 

21STCV15350 

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Shaun Bauman, Counsel to Plaintiff Rafael L. Carrion. 

The motion is continued so that Counsel may cure the deficiencies noted below.

The parties are to appear on the day of the hearing to discuss a continued hearing date with the Judicial Assistant.

Corrected pleading must be filed at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

Moving party to provide notice. 

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff Rafael L. Carrion filed his complaint alleging causes of action for negligence against Defendants Robert W. Newton II, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Swift Transportation Services, LLC, and Does 1 through 20. Plaintiff’s claims arise from a vehicle accident which took place on April 22, 2019.

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Shaun Bauman, filed his Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

 

 

Counsel seeks a court order relieving him as counsel of record for Plaintiff Rafael L. Carrion on the grounds that Counsel has been unable to contact Rafael L. Carrion. Counsel argues that without the ability to contact Plaintiff, he is unable to represent Plaintiff’s interests. 

 

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires: (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion, motion, and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 

 

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation. (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.) There is a compelling reason when the withdrawal would prejudice the client, the other parties in the action, or a third party. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406; Linn v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1926) 79 Cal.App. 721, 725.) 

Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Rafael L. Carrion.

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 has not met the service requirements set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d). Notice of a motion to be relieved as counsel, the motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)) When the client is served via mail, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1) provides that the motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing either (A) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client, and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

Here, service was deficient because Counsel’s attempts to obtain a more current address for Plaintiff was more than 30 days before the filing of this motion. Counsel filed Proof of Service showing he served Plaintiff by mail at his last known address. Counsel notes that he could not to locate Plaintiff and sent him letters in August and September of 2021. (Feldshtein Decl., ¶¶ 2-4) However, these letters are in Spanish. Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subd. (g)) Plaintiff also states he attempted to locate Plaintiff using LexisNexis skip trace. (Feldshetin Decl., ¶5) However, the referenced exhibit is another letter in Spanish. The court cannot determine if Counsel made reasonable efforts to obtain Plaintiff’s address. Moreover, these attempts to locate Plaintiff were more than 30 days before the filing of this motion. Thus, Plaintiff does not meet the service requirements set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1)(B).

Counsel’s motion is continued until he can correct the deficiencies described above.