Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV41794, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41794    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION 

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff DeeAnna Linsmaier’s counsel, Arthur M. Petrousian of Morgan & Morgan Los Angeles LLP (“Counsel”), filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”). 

On February 27, 2023, Defendant Wail Bushara’s “limited scope counsel” filed an opposition to the motion to be relieved. 

On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed opposition.  On the same day, Defendant Wail Bushara (“Defendant”) filed an objection to the redacted opposition to the motion.[1]

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 “[t]here has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship precluding counsel’s ability to effectively represent the client in this matter.”  (Form MC-052.)  For this reason, Counsel seeks an order relieving Morgan & Morgan as counsel to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff opposes the motion because she does not believe there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and she would be prejudiced if Counsel were relieved so close to trial (May 11, 2023) – a mere five weeks from the trial date.    

Defendant, by and through “limited scope counsel”, joins in Plaintiff’s opposition arguing the ensuing delay if Counsel were relieved would prejudice his personal and financial standing as well as his litigation posture. 

Given Counsel’s history in the case, Plaintiff’s position that there has not been a breakdown in the attorney client relationship, and the proximity of the trial date, the Court finds Plaintiff would be significantly prejudiced if Counsel were to withdraw at this late juncture in the matter. 

IV.       CONCLUSION

Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved is DENIED.

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 5th day of April 2023