Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV25312, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25312    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      September 12, 2024                                                   TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Patrick Cassie Strickland, et al. v. BRE ESA Properties LLC

CASE NO.:                 23STCV25312

MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Claudia Borsutzki, Friedman & Chapman

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On June 27, 2024, Claudia Borsutzki, counsel for Plaintiffs Patrick Cassie Strickland, Thomas Johnson, Joanne Ramirez, and Jessie Ramirez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed these Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel. 

The Motions are 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

            Claudi Borsutzki seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the following reasons: “[Plaintiffs are] a client of our firm.  However, [they have] become unresponsive. [¶¶] As of the date of [these] Motion[s] [were] filed, [Plaintiffs have] not contacted anyone at my office.  Due to the lack of cooperation with [Plaintiffs],  my office is unable to provide further discovery responses or produce [them] for a deposition.”  (Forms 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 that the Motions comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.¿ Given the lack of opposition, the court further finds no prejudice will result from the granting of plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to withdraw.   

IV.       CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, the unopposed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED and effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon Plaintiffs.  

The court sets a Status Conference re: Counsel for Plaintiffs for October 14, 2024. 

Counsel to give notice. 

Dated:   September 12, 2024