Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV05568, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV05568 Hearing Date: April 5, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA 
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
| 
   DONALD
  MYERS,                     Plaintiff,           vs. 
 HOME
  DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 
                    Defendant.  | 
  
   ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  )  )  )   | 
  
       
  CASE NO.: 21STCV05568 
 [TENTATIVE]
  ORDER RE:  MOTION
  TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL  
 Dept.
  27 1:30
  p.m. April
  5, 2023 
 Filed:         2/11/2021 Trial
  date:  4/28/2023  | 
 
I.           
INTRODUCTION 
On February
17, 2023, Plaintiff Donald Myers’s counsel, Haleh Shekarchian of the Law
Offices of Haleh Shekarchian (“Counsel”), filed this Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel (“Motion”).  The Court notes that
Counsel has filed Forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 as well as a proposed order
set forth on pleading paper.  
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 relevant part “[i]t is the desire of the
Law Offices of Haleh Shekarchian to withdraw as counsel for this client on the
ground that there is a conflict between the client and my office regarding the
pursuit of this case and that this client has made it unreasonably difficult
for our firm to carry out my employment in an effective manner.  I have tried reaching the client by calling
him … and his daughter Classi Cox …, who has tried to get the client to
cooperate and call me many times and I have left messages and sent mail and
emails to the client’s above mail and email address.  However, he has not responded.”  (Shekarchian Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.)  For this reason, Counsel seeks an order relieving
Law Offices of Haleh Shekarchian 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 does not comply with
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  The
proof of service attached to Counsel’s Proposed Order indicates that only the
proposed order was served on the parties in this matter.  There is no proof that the notice of motion,
motion, or declaration was served on Defendant.  
IV.     CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
the Motion is CONTINUED to April 24, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 27 of the
Spring Street Courthouse to allow Counsel to file proof of service of the
notice of motion, motion, and declaration. 
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
| 
      | 
  
   
  | 
 
| 
   
  | 
  
   Hon.
  Kerry Bensinger  Judge of the Superior Court 
  |