Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

erik de la rosa,

Plaintiff,

dale gibson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 24NNCV02017

Hearing Date: December 20, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MoTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of Complaint

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Erik De La Rosa (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action arising out of an injury Plaintiff sustained on June 10, 2022 while working on the premises of Defendants’ Dale Gibson and Heather Gibson (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges he was working within the attic of the subject premises when the defective, cracked, broken, and/or deteriorated flooring collapsed, causing him to fall and endure severe injury and pain.

The complaint, filed on June 3, 2024, alleges two causes of action for (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability.

B. Relevant Background

On October 31, 2024, the Court issued a minute order, noting there was no proof of service of the Summons and Complaint filed. Counsel for plaintiff represented they were still attempting to serve defendant with the Summons and Complaint. Counsel for plaintiff requested that hearing be continued so that Case Management Conference was continued to March 6, 2025, and remains on calendar for said date. Trial in this action is not yet set.

C. Motion(s) on Calendar

On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mary Guirguis, filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, as well as the Declaration of Mary Guirguis (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053). There is no opposition.

DISCUSSION

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

Counsel Guirguis states there has been a “breakdown in the communication between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to locate/make contact with client.” (See MC-052.) Counsel Guirguis further declares that the client was served by mail at the client’s last known address which the attorney has been unable to confirm the address is current after making the following efforts: (a) mailing the motion papers to client’s last known address, return receipt requested; (b) calling the client’s last known telephone number or numbers; and (d) conducting a search “TLO search to locate current address. Confirmed with Plaintiff’s family members.” (MC-052, ¶3(b)(2).) Thus, Plaintiff’s Counsel concludes she is unable to locate or make contact with client after diligent efforts to do so.

The Court finds that Counsel Guirguis has properly moved to be relieved as counsel and has established both procedural and substantive requirements in filing the required forms (MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053) and setting forth a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The next hearing is a case management conference on March 6, 2025, which leaves sufficient time for Plaintiff to obtain new counsel if he wishes to. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the instant motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Counsel Guirguis’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

MOVING PARTY shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: December 20, 2024 ___________________________

John J. Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court