Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV23237, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23237    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION 

On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff Rosa Martinez Ramirez’s counsel, Robert B. Gibson of the Law Offices of Gibson & Hughes (“Counsel”), filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”).  The motion was heard on April 17, 2023.  The Court could not grant the Motion at that time because the Motion did not comply with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1362.  Specifically, Item 2 of the Motion incorrectly indicated that the hearing would be held in Dept. 27 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On April 21, 2023, Counsel filed a revised Motion and supporting papers.

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

In the declaration, Counsel states In the declaration, Counsel states “[t]here are fundamental differences in the evaluation and management of the case which have arisen between Plaintiff and Gibson & Hughes which as [sic] impossible to resolve.”  (Form MC-052.)  For this reason, Counsel seeks an order relieving Gibson & Hughes as counsel to Plaintiff.

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.)¿¿¿ 

After review of the Motion, the Court finds that the Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  Further, the Court finds that no prejudice will result from granting this motion.  No opposition has been filed and Plaintiff has sufficient time to prepare the case or seek new counsel before the October 16, 2023 trial date.¿¿ 

Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff.  

IV.     CONCLUSION

Counsel’s Motion 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 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 May 2023