Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV08133, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08133    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On March 1, 2021, plaintiff Mirna Grant Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jessica Apodaca, Jennifer Rene Lucero, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle.

The Attachment to the Complaint alleges that this action arises from an automobile collision that occurred on October 4, 2020, in Los Angeles, California. Defendants allegedly operated or entrusted their motor vehicle in a negligent manner, causing the accident.  

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Joseph D. Ryan, filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

As of May 3, 2023, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: ¶ 1.  Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; ¶ 2.  Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, an attorney moving to be relieved as counsel must do the following:

(1)  File a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-051));

(2)  Submit 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)  Serve the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and

(4)  Lodge a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-053)).

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)    

III.      DISCUSSION

Attorney Joseph D. Ryan attests to the following facts. His office began representing Plaintiff on October 21, 2020, pursuant to a retainer agreement executed by Plaintiff. (Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, filed March 23, 2023, Item 2, Attached Declaration (“Ryan Decl.”), ¶ 2.) His office then filed this action on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 3.) During his last meeting with Plaintiff, Plaintiff indicated that she did not want to proceed with litigation and expressed her desire to settle the matter as she was unsure of her living circumstances and was intermittingly homeless. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 4.) Therefore, per Plaintiff’s instructions and prior to serving the Summons and Complaint, Plaintiff and counsel proceeded to settle the matter for $20,000, after obtaining a top demand from Defendants’ insurance carrier. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 5.) A Notice of Settlement was filed with the Court on August 17, 2022. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 5.) However, since obtaining that settlement release, counsel has been unable to contact or locate Plaintiff. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff had given counsel her daughter’s address. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 4.) Her daughters, Gisell Grant-Flores and Zugerys Berrio-Grant, told counsel that Plaintiff is not living with them and is in fact homeless. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel has attached a copy of a report from Link Investigations, an investigations company that was also unable to locate Plaintiff. (Ryan Decl., ¶ 7.)

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may withdraw from representing if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively ….” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s failure to contact counsel has made it unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his representation effectively. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that counsel has provided a valid reason for the withdrawal.

The Court also finds that counsel has complied with the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, by filing required and complete forms. The Court notes that counsel’s moving papers informed Plaintiff that the next hearing is an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), on April 3, 2023. Indeed, on April 3, 2023, the Court held that hearing but continued it to June 13, 2023, after counsel informed the Court that he was unable to locate Plaintiff. Therefore, at the time counsel filed the instant motion on March 23, 2023, his moving papers correctly advised Plaintiff about the next hearing.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Attorney Joseph D. Ryan will be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Mirna Grant Flores upon counsel’s filing of Proof of Service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil.”

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’s 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 9th day of May 2023