Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV19389, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19389    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Order

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      January 9, 2025                                            TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         G&G Transport LLC v. General Motors LLC

CASE NO.:                 23STCV19389

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Peter Maissian, Prestige Legal Solutions, P.C.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On December 13, 2024, Peter Maissian, counsel for Plaintiff, G&G Transport 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 

Peter Maissian seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “Plaintiff’s counsel made numerous attempts at telephonic communications, and text

message transmissions, with Plaintiff at his last known phone number. Plaintiff’s counsel

made contact with Plaintiff, and he was being unreasonable.  [¶]  Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel has made numerous attempts at telephonic communications, and text message transmissions, with Plaintiff at his last known phone number which have since been, and remain, unacknowledged. [¶] Up to date of filing of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel has received no acknowledgement to any and all attempts to communicate with Plaintiff in excess of eighty (80) days.”  (Maissan Decl., ¶¶ 16-18.)   

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 that 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 Plaintiff. 

            The court sets a Status Conference re: Counsel for Plaintiff for February 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

            Counsel to give notice.

Dated:   January 9, 2025