Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV04848, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04848    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     June 13, 2023                         TRIAL DATE:  February 6, 2024

CASE:                                Eileen Vargas v. GTrans, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV04848

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Daniel D. Geoulla, B&D Law Group, APLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On April 4, 2023, Daniel D. Geoulla, counsel for Plaintiff Eileen Vargas, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

The Motion came on for hearing on May 30, 2023.  The Court could not grant the Motion because Counsel did not include all future hearings in this matter.  The hearing was continued to allow Counsel to correct that deficiency. 

On June 13, 2023, Counsel filed an amended Motion.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

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

            Daniel D. Geoulla seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “The basis is irreconcilable differences and a complete breakdown in communication between attorney and client.”  (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 May 30, 2023 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.