Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV11618, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11618    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     May 23, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Patrice Duren v. Centinela Car Wash Properties, LLC

CASE NO.:                 21STCV11618

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Duncan J. McCreary, Reeder McCreary, LLP

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

            On April 9, 2024, Duncan J. McCreary, counsel for Defendant, Centinela Car Wash Properties, LLC, filed this Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.

            The Motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules 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

            Duncan J. McCreary seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant for the following reasons: “A conversation occurred late in the evening of March 5, 2024 between Hooman Michael Nissani and myself which resulted in a serious conflict of interest between Mr. Nissani and myself, and Reeder McCreary, LLP. The conflict is so serious that no additional work can ethically be performed by either myself and/or Reeder McCreary, LLP for Hooman Michael Nissani and any of his related entities.  Duncan McCreary and Reeder McCreary, LLP must ethically cease all representation of Hooman Michael Nissani and any of his related entities immediately due to the serious nature of the conflict.”  (McCreary Decl., Form MC-052.)    

            Christopher S. Reeder, managing partner of Reeder McCreary, LLP also adds the following:  “Late in the evening on March 5, 2024, I became aware that a conversation occurred on March 5, 2024 between Hooman Michael Nissani and Duncan J. McCreary of Reeder McCreary, LLP which resulted in a serious conflict of interest between Mr. Nissani and Mr. McCreary. On March 6, 2024, after consulting with our outside ethics counsel, I concluded that the conflict is so serious that no additional legal services can ethically be performed by either Mr. McCreary or Reeder McCreary, LLP for Hooman Michael Nissani and any of his related entities.”  (Reeder Decl., Form 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, the court finds that the Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  The proof of service shows that Plaintiff was not served with notice of this Motion.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Motion is CONTINUED to June 25, 2024 to allow Counsel for Defendant to serve Plaintiff with notice of this Motion.  The court notes Plaintiff is self-represented.  Counsel for Defendant is directed to serve Plaintiff pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B). 

Dated:   May 23, 2024