Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV23889, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23889    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      March 18, 2025                                                             TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Fina Frame, LLC, et al. v. Solid Post Holdings, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV23889

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Kevin E. Deenihan, The Rasmussen Law Firm, L.L.P.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On January 24, 2025, Kevin E. Deenihan, counsel for Defendant, Solid Post Holdings, 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 

Kevin E. Deenihan seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant for the following reason: “Without disclosing privileged attorney-client communications, cause exists for termination of this representation under C.C.P. section 284(2).”  (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 does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Item 3b of Form MC-52 is incomplete and the proof of service indicates not all parties in this action have been served with the Motin.

IV.       CONCLUSION        

            Accordingly, the hearing is continued to April 21, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  The Counsel is directed to serve and file amended Forms MC-51, MC-52, and MC-53 updated with the current matters set for hearing, a completed Form MC-52, and to provide proof of service of the moving papers on all parties in this action.

            Counsel to give notice.

Dated:   March 18, 2025