Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV04500, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04500    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     May 24, 2023                         TRIAL DATE:  June 16, 2023

CASE:                                Mei Ling v. City of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04500

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Shaun Bauman, Bauman Law

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff Mei Ling’s counsel, Shaun Bauman, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

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 

Shaun Bauman seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff on the following grounds:  “There has been significant breakdown in the communication between Plaintiff and counsel, rendering it extremely difficult for counsel to continue in representation of Plaintiff. Counsel has had very limited communication with Plaintiff over the last 120 days and prior to this, Counsel was having a difference in opinion which was causing irreparable damage to the client-attorney relationship.”  (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 of the Motion, the Court finds that the motion does not state the current dates for the scheduled hearings in this matter.  The Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. The Court recognizes that the Motion reflects the hearing dates that were scheduled at the time this Motion was filed.  Accordingly, the Court intends to continue this Motion for a short period of time to allow Counsel to serve an amended Motion and supporting papers consistent with this order.

IV.       CONCLUSION        

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is CONTINUED to June 2, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse to allow Counsel to correct the deficiency noted in this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   May 24, 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.