Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV36254, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36254    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2021, plaintiff Steve Allen Bernard (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Mallorie Renee Griffith (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jasminder Grill (“Counsel”) filed this instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

An attorney in an action may withdraw at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284(2)).  CRC Rule 3.1362 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 CCP §284(2), is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP §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 motion should be denied if withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also 1 Witkin Cal. Pro., Attorneys §72 (2008).) The motion should also be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record 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. (Lempert v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for withdrawal. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) An attorney is not limited to withdrawing from a case for cause and may withdraw whenever withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, 559.)

III.      DISCUSSION

(1) Notice – CRC Rule 3.1362(a); PC § 1213(a)(4)

Here, Counsel has not used form MC-051 as directed under CRC Rule 3.1362.

(2) Declaration – CRC Rule 3.1362(c)

Here, Counsel has filed a proper declaration (form MC-052), stating: “Despite a number of attempts, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Gill has lost contact with Plaintiff. Accordingly, this motion has become necessary.” The Court finds this declaration to be sufficient.

(3) Service – CRC Rule 3.1362(d); LASC Local Rule 4.35

Here, Counsel declares that he personally served the client, but he has not filed a copy of the proof of service at least 5 days before the hearing. (MC-052 section 3 (a).) Since the hearing date is January 20, 2023, Counsel should have filed a copy of the proof of service by January 13, 2023. Although Plaintiff has filed a notice and acknowledgement of receipt, the Court notes that this is not the same as the proof of service.

(4) Order – CRC Rule 3.1362(e)

Here, Counsel has not lodged the proposed order form MC-053 as specified under CRC Rule 3.1362(e).

Counsel is recommended to refile after complying with all the statutory requirements and filing the appropriate documents, including but not limited to MC-051, MC-053, and a copy of the proof of service.

IV.      CONCLUSION  

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

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 20th day of January 2023