Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV38633, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV38633 Hearing Date: March 14, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
March 14, 2023
21STCV38633
Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Patricia D. Alabise, Counsel for Plaintiffs Guadalupe Muro Aguirre and Hector Muro
DECISION
Both motions are continued.
The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing to set a continued hearing date.
All documents must be filed at least five court days in advance of the hearing date.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in October 2019. Plaintiffs Guadalupe Muro Aguirre, Hector Muro, Rosaura Aguirre de Muro, and Hector Manuel Muro filed their Complaint against Defendant Amir Daghihi Asli on October 20, 2021.
On February 1, 2023, Patricia D. Alabise filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Counsel Patricia D. Alabise seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Guadalupe Muro Aguirre and Hector Muro. Counsel cites a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Aguirre and Muro have been unresponsive to communication attempts.
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 Guadalupe Muro Aguirre and Hector Muro.
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 Aguirre and Muro by mail at their last known address which she confirmed was current via mail, return receipt requested, within 30 days before Counsel filed this motion. (MC-052 Item #3.)
Aguirre and Muro will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter after Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel are heard is a final status conference scheduled for October 12, 2023. Trial is set for October 24, 2023. There is sufficient time for Aguirre and Muro to engage 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.)
After Counsel filed the instant motion, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue trial. The dates on Counsel’s forms are now outdated. Counsel must update the FSC and trial dates on forms MC-053. Additionally, Counsel failed to provide Aguirre and Muro’s phone number on forms MC-053. Counsel must provide this information before this motion may be granted.
