Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV38859 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff filed by Carlos Alberto Gomez

The motion is granted.

Counsel is ordered to provide notice and to serve a copy of the signed MC-053 on Plaintiff. Proof of service of the MC-053 must be filed within five court days after the date of this order.

Counsel is reminded that the Court's Ruling and Attorney's
relief as Counsel of record for client is not effective until Proof of Service
of the (MC-053) Order signed by the Court upon the client is filed in this
action. Until then, counsel continues to
be counsel of record. Cal. Rules of
Court 3.1362(e).

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in November 2019. Defendant John Doe allegedly struck Plaintiff as she was crossing a crosswalk. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on October 21, 2021.

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Carlos Alberto Gomez, filed his motion to be relieved as counsel.

On June 10, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this motion because Counsel failed to appear. Additionally, the motion contained the following deficiencies:

Counsel had not filed a proof of service indicating that the MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 have been served on the client.

Item 6 on the MC-053 was incomplete. It did not provide the client’s address and phone as required.

Item was not filled in. The OSC Date Re: Dismissal should be listed.

Item 9 on the MC-053 was wrong. Box 9b should have been checked since trial has been set.

Item 5 of the MC-052 was not filled in. The OSC Date Re: Dismissal should have been listed here.

“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).)

Counsel filed new papers following the June 10, 2022 hearing. The deficiencies are corrected. Accordingly, the motion is granted.