Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV25236, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV25236 Hearing Date: July 10, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: July
10, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: February 1, 2024
CASE: Musserref Yucesoy v. Kareem Nizam, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV25236
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Jonathan
M. Kashani, Law Office of Jonathan M. Kashani, PLC
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 13, 2023, Jonathan M. Kashani, counsel for Plaintiff
Musserref Yucesoy, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. The Motion was heard on June 15, 2023. The Court could not grant the Motion at that
time because the Motion did not notify Plaintiff of all future hearings
scheduled in this matter.
On June 26, 2023, Counsel filed an amended motion.
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
Jonathan M. Kashani seeks to be relieved as counsel of
record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “There has been a breakdown in
the attorney client relationship resulting from irreconcilable differences
between client and attorney making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the
employment and representation effectively.” (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 cured the defects noted in the Court’s previous
order. The amended Motion complies with
the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.
IV. CONCLUSION
The
motion is granted and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service
of this Order on Plaintiff.¿¿
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: July 10, 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.