Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV06570, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06570    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     July 11, 2023                          TRIAL DATE:  August 22, 2023

CASE:                                Destinie Gabrielle Neal v. Panrose Corporation, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV06570

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Tom Kinan, Law Offices of Jacob Emrani

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On May 10, 2023, Tom Kinan, counsel for Plaintiff Destinie Gabrielle Neal, filed this 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 

Tom Kinan seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “Attorney-client relationship is completely deteriorated as a direct result of Plaintiff-Client’s actions for the following two reasons. First, Ms. Neal adamantly refused to provide her verifications to past due discovery responses that have been due to Defendant Penrose since 3/1/2023. This issue has been ongoing for several months with our office conducting multiple attempts to obtain the requested information after reluctantly receiving three separate extensions for discovery due dates from Defendant Penrose. Second, Ms. Neal’s intentional misrepresentation of several material facts have caused her to not only commit perjury but also nullify each cause of action she has alleged in her Complaint against Penrose. Specifically, Surveillance footage produced by Penrose shows that Ms. Neal life [sic] when she stated that Defendants Penrose falsely imprisoned her and LAPD used excessive force in arresting her.”  (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 of the Motion, the Court finds that it complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.  

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            The motion is granted and effective upon filing of proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff.¿¿ 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   July 11, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.