Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV44080, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44080    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     March 27, 2024                      TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Elena Svistina v. Advanced Properties, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV44080

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Marvin B. Adviento, MBA Legal, P.C.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On January 23, 2024, Marvin B. Adviento, counsel for Plaintiff, Elena Svistina, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  

The motion was calendared for hearing on February 21, 2024.  Because the motion was not supported by proof of service or a completed proposed order (Form MC-053), the court continued the hearing for this motion to Marcy 27, 2024. 

On March 4, 2024, Counsel filed an amended Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

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 

Marvin B. Adviento seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reasons: “There is an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”  (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 the amended motion still does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Counsel did not address any of the defects noted in the court’s previous order.  There is still no proof of service showing this motion was served on all parties in this action.  Nor did Counsel submit a proposed order (Form MC-053) which addresses Items 3, 5, 7, and 9.  The court will continue the hearing for this motion one last time to allow Counsel to correct these foregoing defects.

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            Accordingly, the hearing for this motion is CONTINUED to April 19, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.  Counsel is to file and serve an amended motion correcting the defects noted in this order.  Counsel is also directed to include the new hearing dates in its amended motion.  Failure to cure these defects will result in a denial of the motion to be relieved and/or sanctions.

            Counsel to give notice.  

Dated:   March 27, 2024