Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV06432, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06432 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs.
EDWARD AZIZ BABAIAN, et al.,
Defendant(s).
|
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
[TENTATIVE] MOTION TO BE RELIEVED
AS COUNSEL
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. May 5, 2023
Trial Date: 8/22/23 |
I. BACKGROUND
On
February 22, 2022, plaintiffs David Villa Jr., Anthony Botello, Guadalupe
Botello Monge, Jaylin Villa, and Thiago Villa (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed
this action against defendants Edward Aziz Babaian, Arshalus Muradian and Does
1 through 10, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting one cause of
action for negligence.
The
Complaint alleges the following. On or about May 8, 2020, Plaintiffs were
traveling South on Altadena Drive in Pasadena, California. (Comp., ¶ 8.) Defendants
were traveling North when they suddenly swerved into Plaintiffs, causing
Plaintiffs to suffer physical injuries and damages to their vehicle. (Comp., ¶ 8.)
On
March 13, 2023, plaintiff Anthony Botello’s counsel, Charles D. Oh, filed the
instant motion to be relieved as counsel for the plaintiff.
As
of May 2, 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));
(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
Charles D. Oh states that there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client
relationship between him and plaintiff Anthony Botello (a minor).
The Court finds that a valid reason for
withdrawal. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).)
However,
counsel has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, as he has
failed to file a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order
Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-053)).
In addition, Item 5 in the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-052), is incomplete. Specifically, counsel
did not advise his client that there is a Final Status Conference on August 8,
2023, and an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal on February 18, 2025.
Therefore,
the motion is continued to June 15, 2023.
Counsel must correct the defects and comply with rule 3.1362. Counsel must serve notice of the continued
hearing date, along with the motion, declaration, and
proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the
case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Attorney Charles D. Oh’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is continuted to
June 15, 2023 at 1:30 pm.
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 5th day of May 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Kerry
Bensinger Judge of the
Superior Court |