Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV14834, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14834    Hearing Date: August 11, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 11, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  December 22, 2023

CASE:                                Guoqiang Li v. Salvador Hernandez, et al.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV14834

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Thomas M. Willford, Willford Law

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On June 14, 2023, Thomas M. Willford, counsel for Plaintiff Guoqiang Li, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  

The motion was heard on July 11, 2023.  The Court could not grant the motion because Counsel did not attach a proof of service showing that all parties to the action had been served with the motion.  The Court continued the hearing to allow Counsel to correct that defect.

On July 21, 2023, Counsel filed a proof of service.

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 

Thomas M. Willford seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “My client has repeatedly refused to cooperate.  He provided various insufficient reasons for not cooperating despite my office having repeatedly advised him of the consequences should we not receive his cooperation in various important matters.  It has become unduly difficult to represent Mr. Li in this matter due to his refusal to cooperate and we therefore ask the court to be allowed to withdraw as his counsel.  My office has written communication with the client showing that Mr. Li has repeatedly failed to cooperate.  Such communications fall under attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.  However, I will produce the documents under seal in support of this Motion if the court requires.”  (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.).  

Counsel has corrected the defect noted in the Court’s previous order.  Counsel filed proofs of service showing that all parties in this action have been served with this motion.  The Court finds that this motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            The motion to be relieve as counsel is granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon Plaintiff.¿

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 11, 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.