Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV19600, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19600    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 27

f

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

LESLIE UNGAR, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

SMART REAL ESTATE, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 22STCV19600

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 9, 2023

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On October 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Sophia Ungar and Leslie Ungar’s counsel, Neer Lerner, filed the instant Motions 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

Neer Lerner seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Sophia Ungar and Leslie Ungar on grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney–client relationship. 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.).

However, on January 11, 2023, the Court found that the proposed orders fail to include the OSC Re: Dismissal scheduled for June 13, 2024 in item 8 and continued the motion. Counsel has failed to file any new documents since the January 11, 2023 hearing.

Accordingly, the motions are DENIED without prejudice.  Counsel may refile the motion once the deficiencies have been cured.

 

IV.     CONCLUSION

Counsel’s motions are DENIED without prejudice.

 

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 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 9th day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court