Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV42287 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel filed by Daniel Azizi and Steven Ross.

The motion is continued to April 27, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. so that Plaintiff has representation for the motion to dismiss hearing on that day.

In addition, Counsel must file and serve a new MC-053 which includes the correct FSC and trial dates and removes all hearing dates that will have passed on the date of the hearing and also must file a new MC-052 checking box 3(b)(1) and the other appropriate boxes. Essentially, the information in 3(b)(2) should be moved to 3(b)(1) since it appears that a new address has been found for Plaintiff. Counsel should file proof of service of these amended forms on Plaintiff and all other parties.

Counsel to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for premises liability arising from a ceiling collapse that took place in January 2021. Plaintiff Sibil Land filed her Complaint against Defendant City of Culver City on November 16, 2021.

On December 23, 2022, Daniel Azizi filed his first motion to be relieved as counsel.

On January 19, 2023, the Court denied counsel’s motion for failure to provide accurate information with respect to Plaintiff’s address in the declaration and failing to show due diligence in locating Plaintiff.

Counsel filed a new motion to be relieved as counsel on February 16, 2023.

Counsel Daniel Azizi and Steven Ross seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel cites a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

“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 seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Sibil Land.

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).) The Court is satisfied that Counsel have a compelling reason to withdraw. (MC-052, Item #2.)

Counsel served Plaintiff by mail at her new address. Because the Court previously denied Counsels’ motion to be relieved as counsel, Counsel employed a private investigator to locate Plaintiff. (MC-052, Attachment 3b, ¶9.) The investigator located Plaintiff’s new address at 2178 N. Sycamore Ave., Rialto, CA 92377. (Id., ¶10.)

Plaintiff will be prejudiced if Counsels’ motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a hearing on a motion to dismiss set for April 27, 2023, just three weeks from the date of this motion. Plaintiff will not have sufficient time to retain new counsel before the next hearing in this matter. The hearing is also not recorded in Counsels’ forms. Trial is set for September 19, 2023. However, Counsels’ forms still show an outdated trial date.