Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV09672, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09672    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     April 22, 2025                                    TRIAL DATE:  March 30, 2026

CASE:                                R. Lee v. Seowon, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                      22STCV09672

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL 

MOVING PARTY:              Theodore C. Peters/Sidorela Deliu-Kerasiotis, O’Hagan Meyer LLP

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On March 12, 2025, Theodore C. Peters and Sidorela Deliu-Kerasiotis, counsel for Defendant, Cornerstone Apparel, Inc., filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.   

The motion is unopposed. 

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

Theodore C. Peters and Sidorela Deliu-Kerasiotis seek to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant for the following reason: “Without disclosing privileged attorney-client communications, cause exists for termination of this representation under C.C.P. section 284(2).”  (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 Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Counsel submitted an incomplete proposed order.  (See Form MC-052, Items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.)  Further, counsel served Defendant with Forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 by electronic service and mail service, but did not submit a declaration pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1) and (2). 

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion is CONTINUED TO MAY 30, 2025, at 8:30 am to afford counsel time to correct the errors. 

Counsel to give notice. 

Dated:   April 22, 2025