Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV19537, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV19537 Hearing Date: October 9, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 9, 2023 TRIAL DATE: Not
set
CASE: Jesus Hernandez v. Cambodian Buddhist Society of Pomona
CASE NO.: 20STCV19537
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Evan L.
Ginsburg, Law Office of Evan L. Ginsburg
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 1, 2023, Evan L. Ginsburg, counsel for Defendant, Cambodian
Buddhist Society of Pomona, 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
Evan L. Ginsburg seeks to be relieved as counsel of record
for Defendant for the following reason: “Attorney is asking to be relieved as
the attorney of record only as to the cross-complaint. The complaint has been dismiss and a conflict
has developed that makes it impossible to represent the cross-complainant for
the cross-complaint.” (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
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
IV. CONCLUSION
The motion is granted and effective
upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon Defendant.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: October 9, 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.