Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV27547, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27547    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Order

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      January 7, 2025                                            TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Harper Kennedy Cullen v. Fabiola De Leon, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV27547

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Olivier Taillieu and Matthew Russell, BD&J, PC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          INTRODUCTION

On October 29, 2024, Olivier Taillieu and Matthew Russell, counsel for Plaintiff, Harper Kennedy Cullen 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 

Olivier Taillieu and Matthew Russell seek to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff for the following reason: “There has been a significant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, which has significantly impeded counsel's ability to effectively prosecute this case and represent the client's interest.”  (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 Plaintiff. 

            Counsel to give notice.

Dated:   January 7, 2025