Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV20100, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20100    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 25, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  December 19, 2023

CASE:                                Maria Jaime, et al. v. City of Pico Rivera, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV20100

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Lina I. Kakish, Hanning & Sacchetto, LLP

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On June 8, 2023, Lina I. Kakish, counsel for Plaintiff, Daniel Jaime, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  

The motion was heard on August 4, 2023.  The Court could not approve the motion because Counsel did not include a proposed order on Judicial Council Form MC-053 nor the OSC re: Dismissal among the list of future hearings in this matter.

On August 18, 2023, Counsel filed an amended motion.

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 

Lina Kakish seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “Respectfully, Mr. Jaime, has failed to follow the advice of Counsel with respect to the advancement of this action, and as a result, irreconcilable differences have arisen between Counsel and Plaintiff Daniel Jaime regarding issues fundamental to the prosecution of this action.  These differences are fundamental to the prosecution of this action and prevent Counsel from proceeding further with this action as Plaintiff Daniel Jaime’s counsel of record.”  (MC-051, Ex. 1.)   

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.).  

            Counsel has cured the defects noted in the Court’s previous order.  The Court finds that the Motion now complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            The motion to be relieved as counsel is granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon Plaintiff.   

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 25, 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.