Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV17459, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17459    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 18, 2022
21STCV17459
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by the Law Offices of A. Kahn and Nadrich & Cohen, counsel for Plaintiff Janet Van Ham

DECISION 

The motion is continued.

The parties are to appear at the hearing to set a continued hearing date.

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

Moving party to provide notice (including to Plaintiff) and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days.

Background

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Janet Van Ham filed her Complaint against Karen Bonsignore on May 10, 2021. 
Summary

Moving Arguments

Counsel the Law Offices of A. Kahn and Nadrich & Cohen seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel cite a breakdown in the attorney client relationship and in communication.

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 seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Janet Van Ham. Counsel cite a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship and in communication. (MC-052 Item #2.) Counsel served Plaintiff by mail at her current address with return receipt requested within 30 days of the filing of this motion. (MC-052 Item #3.)

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 Court is satisfied that Counsel have a compelling reason to be relieved as counsel. (MC-052, Items #2, 7.) Plaintiff is hostile to Counsel and their staff to the point that staff refuse to work with her. (MC-052, Item #7.) Plaintiff also filed a complaint about Counsel to the California State Bar which was dismissed. (MC-052, Item #7.) Given the hostility between Plaintiff and Counsel, it would be unreasonable for Counsel to continue representing Plaintiff. However, at the present moment, trial is imminent and therefore the motion may not be granted at this time given the potential prejudice to Plaintiff.

Given the upcoming trial date, the court cannot consider this motion until after the motion to continue trial has been heard.

Assuming the trial and other upcoming dates are changed, counsel will need to put updated information in the Form MC-053.

Moreover, also with respect to Form MC-053: Item #6 is missing Plaintiff’s address and phone number. This must be corrected.

All forms: The name of the judicial officer is missing and must be added.