Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV25214, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25214    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 5, 2022, plaintiffs Maria Celeste Lingad (“Lingad”), Czarinah Beatrice Bartolome (“Bartolome”), Zabrina Eugene Zamora, a minor (“Zabrina”), and Samantha Nicole Zamora, a minor (“Samantha”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Vilma V. Go (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for trespass and assault and battery.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant trespassed into Plaintiffs’ backyard on April 16, 2022 and proceeded to push over and break Plaintiffs’ property, push Plaintiffs Bartolome, Samantha, and Zabrina, and slapped Plaintiff Lingad in the face.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ameer A. Shah of the Law Offices of Ameer Shah (“Counsel”).  On January 24, 2023, Counsel filed these Motions to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motions”) for Plaintiffs Lingad, Bartolme, and Zabrina.  Counsel declares as follows: “A substantial difference of opinion or dispute regarding appropriate legal strategy emerged between Attorney AMEER SHAH and Plaintiff[s] in relation to [their] legal claim[s] against the Defendant.  The opposing views about appropriate legal strategy have created an irremediable rupture in the attorney-client relationship that is beyond salvageable resolution, Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 596.  A deep mistrust and misunderstanding between the attorney and client[s] [have] ensued, which has led to the total break down in attorney-client communications.  The aforesaid irremediable rupture in the present attorney-client relationship virtually makes it quite impossible for AMEER SHAH to appropriately and ethically continue to represent the legal interests of the Plaintiff[s] in the case at bar.  I am, therefore, compelled to respectfully request an order to withdraw forthwith as [Plaintiffs’] counsel of record.”  (Forms MC-052, Shah Decls.)

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’s Motions comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Court notes that trial is set in this matter for August 2, 2024, which is over 14 months away.  Further, no prejudice will result from granting this motion as no opposition has been filed. 

Accordingly, the unopposed Motions are GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Defendant and all parties who have appeared. 

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 20th day of March 2023