Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCP02141, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 23STCP02141 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: 31
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31
HEARING DATE: February 11, 2025 TRIAL DATE: Not
set
CASE: All Rights Entertainment SAS v. Tetrad Studios, LLC
CASE NO.: 23STCP02141
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Daniel
B. Lopez, U.S. Law Group
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 25, 2024, Daniel B. Lopez, counsel for Respondent,
Tetrad Studios LLC, 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
Daniel Lopez seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Respondent
for the following reason: “Tetrad Studios LLC has failed to pay several
past-due invoices owed to U.S. Law Group.” (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 complies with California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
IV. CONCLUSION
The
unopposed Motion is granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of
service of this signed order upon Respondent.
Counsel to
give notice.
Dated: February 11, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry Bensinger
Judge of the Superior Court |