SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Steven Allen Venard filed this action against Defendant Mallorie Renee Griffith for injuries arising from an October 1, 2019 motor vehicle accident.  Defendant has not appeared in this action. 

On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jasminder Gill of Pacific Coast Injury Law Center, filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. 

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 

Jasminder Gill seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Steve Allen Venard on the following grounds: “Attorney is no longer able to reasonably communicate with client and effectively carry out the representation.  This breakdown and other irreconcilable differences in the attorney client relationship are good cause for attorney to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff.”  (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’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  Further, the Court finds that no prejudice will result from granting this motion as no opposition has been filed and trial has yet to be set in this matter.¿¿ 

Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff.  

IV. CONCLUSION 

Counsel’s motion is GRANTED. 

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 27th day of April 2023