Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV22463, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22463    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

          On June 15, 2020, plaintiff Troy Perry (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Brian Boudreaux and Lois Sophia Rocha (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from an October 1, 2019 motor vehicle collision. On August 25, 2020, Adrineh Hayrabidian filed an action against Defendants as well as Socorro Sanchez and Alex Omar Munguia Romero (“Romero”) arising from the same collision. On October 14, 2020, Romero filed an action against Defendants arising from the same collision. The three actions were then consolidated on January 19, 2022.

          The Final Scheduling Conference is set for April 21, 2023. Trial is currently set for May 5, 2023.

On January 6, 2023, Arpi Galstian of Yepremyan Law Firm filed a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (hereinafter, “Motion”), moving to be relieved as counsel for Romero.

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

          “The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

          California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).)

III.     DISCUSSION

          Arpi Galstian of Yepremyan Law Firm (“Counsel”) has filed a Motion To Be Relieved as Counsel, effectively moving to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Alex Omar Munguia Romero (“Romero”).  Counsel’s request is granted.

          Counsel properly submitted a motion and notice of motion (Form-051), a declaration in support of the motion (Form-052), and a Proposed Order (Form-053) as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

          Counsel states that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the attorney client relationship. (Declaration, para. 2.)  Trial is more than two months away, and the motion was served more than four months before the trial.  

          Based on the foregoing, Counsel’s Motion To Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

IV.     CONCLUSION

          Arpi Galstian of Yepremyan Law Firm’s Motion To Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

          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’s 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.

Dated this 1st day of March 2023