Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV07387, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07387    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      September 7, 2023                                      TRIAL DATE:  January 11, 2024

CASE:                                Nequetta Thompson v. Thomas Hood

CASE NO.:                 20STCV07387

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Daniel Gibalevich, DAG Law Firm, APC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On February 23, 2023, Daniel Gibalevich, counsel for Plaintiff Nequetta Thompson, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  Plaintiff did not file written opposition to the motion.  However, at the hearing for the motion on March 28, 2023, Plaintiff appeared and argued that the differences between Counsel and Plaintiff were not irreconcilable.  Based on oral argument, the Court denied the motion.

On August 1, 2023, Counsel filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

The motion is unopposed.

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 

Daniel Gibalevich seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reasons: “There has been an irreparable breakdown of the working relationship between counsel and the client making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. The relationship of trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client relationship has ceased to exist.  Little, if any, prejudice would befall the Plaintiff, Nequetta Thompson if an Order is issued permitting my firm to withdraw as attorneys of record in this case.  All rights have been preserved for Plaintiff following the filing of the comprehensive Complaint. This is the second motion to be relieve filed by Plaintiffs counsel. The previous motion was heard on March 28, 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.).  

The Motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Further, the Court finds that no prejudice will result from granting this Motion as no opposition has been filed and there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to seek new counsel and/or prepare for trial.

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 7, 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.