Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV16712 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Gabriela Sepulveda, Counsel for Plaintiff Erika Swift

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Gabriela Sepulveda, Counsel for Plaintiff Kingston Pina

These motions are continued to give Counsel time to cure the deficiencies noted below.

The parties are to appear on the date of the hearing in order to set a continued hearing date.

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

Moving party to provide notice (including to both Plaintiffs) and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in May 2019. Plaintiffs Erika Swift and Kingston Pina filed their Complaint against Defendants Brenda Yates and Felix Valepena Mena on May 4, 2021.

On September 13, 2022, Gabriela Sepulveda filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

On September 14, 2022, the Court granted a continuance based on the parties’ stipulation to continue trial to August 7, 2023 and FSC to July 24, 2023.

Counsel Gabriela Sepulveda seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel cites a breakdown in client communication. Counsel also notes there is new information that would render Counsel unable to ethically represent Plaintiffs in this matter.

Opposing Arguments

“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 must 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).)

Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Erika Swift and Kingston Pina. Counsel cites a breakdown of client communication and notes she cannot ethically represent Plaintiffs in this matter. (MC-052 Item #2.) Counsel served Plaintiffs by mail at their current addresses which Counsel confirmed by phone within 30 days of the filing of this motion. (MC-052 Item #3.)

For both Plaintiffs, 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).) The MC-052 was filed together with the MC-051.

Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a final status conference scheduled for July 24, 2023. Trial is set for August 7, 2023. There is sufficient time for Plaintiffs to engage new counsel before trial. The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw as counsel given the breakdown of communication and the ethical issues involved. (MC-052, Item #2.)

There are issues with Counsel’s forms that must be corrected before the Court will grant these motions:

MC-052 Item 4(c) is not filled out.

MC-053 Item 6. The box marked “current” should be checked because Counsel confirmed Plaintiffs’ addresses by phone.

All forms: the name of the judicial officer in this matter is incorrect.

Counsel must make these corrections and update the forms with the continued trial and FSC dates.