Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV08313, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV08313 Hearing Date: September 25, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: September 25, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: February 27, 2024
CASE: Cecilia Cecena, et al. v. Lee Spencer, et al.
CASE NO.: 19STCV08313
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: William
S. Collins, Law Offices of Marshall Silberg
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 22, 2023, William S. Collins, counsel for Plaintiff,
Hares Fazli, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved
as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the
client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil
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(2) is brought instead of
filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration
in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052));
(3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other
parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving
counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as
Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).
The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw,
and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the
client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)
III. DISCUSSION
William S. Collins seeks to be relieved as counsel of record
for Plaintiff Hares Fazli for the following reasons: “A conflict of interest
has developed that requires counsel be relieved. A conflict has arisen between
the clients and counsel such that counsel is no longer able to effectively
represent the clients. Additionally, the client has made statements against his
attorney that creates a conflict, which makes it impossible to continue to
represent him. Plaintiff has been notified of the conflict and advised to seek
new counsel via writing, via email and over the phone multiple times over the
past several weeks, as recently as July 31, 2023.” (MC-052.)
Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s
request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d
398, 406.).
Upon review, the Court finds the Motion complies with Rules
of Court, rule 3.1362.
IV. CONCLUSION
The
Motion is granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this
signed order upon Plaintiff.
Counsel to
give notice.
Dated: September 25,
2023 ___________________________________
Kerry
Bensinger
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on
the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at
www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative
and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless
appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a
submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others
might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive
emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and
there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.