Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV06432, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06432    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

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, in their vehicle. (Comp., ¶ 8.) Defendants were traveling North, when suddenly they swerved into Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs to suffer physical injuries and damages to their vehicle. (Comp., ¶ 8.)

On March 13, 2023, plaintiff Guadalupe Botello Monge’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));

(3)  Serve the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and

(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 Guadalupe Botello Monge.

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 for the following reasons. Item 7a of the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (MC-053), states that the next scheduled hearing in this action is the non-jury trial on August 22, 2023. That is incorrect. The next hearing is a Final Status Conference on August 8, 2023. Counsel also fails to advise his client that an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is scheduled for February 18, 2025. The Court notes that the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil (MC-052) also provides incorrect and incomplete information regarding future hearings.

Therefore, the motion is continued to June 15, at 1:30 pm.  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 all other parties who have appeared in the case. 

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Attorney Charles D. Oh’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Guadalupe Botello Monge is continued to June 15, 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 8th day of May 2023