Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01203, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01203    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 21, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         KATHERINE PEREZ, an individual, v. OCTAVIO LARA, an individual; JOHN DOE, an individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01203

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Lusine Ghazaryan, counsel of record for Plaintiff Katherine Perez

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed February 5, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Lusine Ghazaryan (“Ghazaryan”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Katherine Perez.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Katherine Perez’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was struck by two motor vehicles, separately operated by Octavio Lara and John Doe, on June 3, 2021.

TENTATIVE RULING

The court will delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until (1) proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the clients and (2) proof that the clients have been properly served with notice of the next trial date have been filed with the court.

            Subject to service of the proofs of service, Ghazaryan’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §284(1) allows for a change or substitution of attorney “[u]pon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes.” If both parties do not consent to a substitution of attorney, Code of Civ. Proc. §284(2) allows for a substitution “[u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 sets forth procedures for relieving counsel without the mutual consent of both parties.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362, an attorney seeking to withdraw by motion rather than by consent of the client, as here, is required to make that motion using approved Judicial Council forms. The motion also requires 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(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1362(c).)  Judicial Council form MC-052, the attorney’s declaration, requires that the client be provided no less than five days’ notice before hearing on the motion.  A proposed order prepared on form MC-053 must also be lodged with the court with the moving papers.

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d) also requires that the motion, notice of motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice served on the client by mail must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts that show that either the service address is current or “that [t]he service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d)).

The Court of Appeals has recognized, “A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client [citation], or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case.  [Citation.]  We are, however, aware of no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

            Ghazaryan moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff. Ghazaryan provides that there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Ghazaryan specifically provides that counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff despite multiple attempts. Ghazaryan provides that Plaintiff was served at the client’s last known address but fails to provide how the address was confirmed.

CONCLUSION

The court will delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until (1) proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the clients and (2) proof that the clients have been properly served with notice of the next trial date have been filed with the court.

            Subject to service of the proofs of service, Ghazaryan’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

Dated:   March 21, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org