Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV21639, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21639    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 5, 2022, Michael Leyva and Serrena Alvarado (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced the present action by filing a Complaint against Sharon Lee Peterson (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint arises from an automobile collision which occurred on September 20, 2020, where Defendant was allegedly driving at an unsafe speed and collided with the rear of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence.

          On January 6, 2023, Selzar Law Group and Daniel E. Selzar, Esq. of Selzar Law Group filed the instant Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.  The Court now considers Selzar Law Group and Daniel E. Selzar, Esq. of Selzar Law Group’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“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.’  [Citation.]”  (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. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of 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) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Selzar Law Group and Daniel E. Selzar, Esq. of Selzar Law Group (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) presently move to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Michael Leyva and Serrena Alvarado (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”). 

Following review of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”), the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion may be granted as the Motion appropriately complies with the whole of the necessary requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have demonstrated Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice as a result of the requested withdrawal.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel have complied with all necessary requirements, as set forth within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Plaintiffs’ Counsel have properly filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052), and Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053) on all appropriate forms, as required within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (e).)  Plaintiffs’ Counsel has properly served the Notice of Motion and Motion, Declaration, and Proposed Order upon Plaintiffs’ last known address by certified mail, and has attempted to confirm the accurateness of Plaintiffs’ address within the last thirty (30) days, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivision (d).  (Decl. in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil, ¶ 3(a)(2), 3(b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)  The Court notes, while California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 required Plaintiffs’ Counsel to serve the sum of the moving papers “ on all other parties who have appeared in the case,” the sole Defendant in this action has not yet appeared, and therefore, further service of the moving papers is not required.   (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has complied with all necessary procedural requirements, as set forth within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) 

Additionally, following a review of Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Motion and Declaration, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ requested withdrawal is warranted and will not cause undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs’ Counsel contend, “there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that stands in the way of effective representation.”  (Decl. in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil, ¶ 2.) The Court observes trial in the present action is not set until January 2, 2024, and therefore, Plaintiffs’ have ample time to obtain substitute counsel in this action.   

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motion may be granted as the Motion appropriately complies with the whole of the necessary requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have demonstrated Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice as a result of the requested withdrawal.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivision (e), Plaintiffs’ Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record only upon the filing of a proof of service which evidences Plaintiffs were served with a signed copy of the Court’s Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (e).) 

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 1^st day of March 2023