Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC702202, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC702202    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On August 10, 2022, Defendant Ronald Glen Davis’ counsel, Phillip T.S. Tukia and Morgenstem Law Group, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

California Rule 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

On August 10, 2022, Defendant Ronald Glen Davis’ counsel, Phillip T.S. Tukia and Morgenstern Law Group, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. On August 30, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to September 15, 2022, so that counsel could file a revised proposed order. A revised proposed order was filed on September 6, 2022. The order was improperly filled out because Item 3b was incomplete and Item 6 stated that the provided address is Defendant’s “last known” which contradicts counsel’s previously-filed declaration in which he represented that he was able to confirm his client’s address as current.

On September 19, 2022, counsel filed a declaration confirming that Plaintiff’s address was current. However, several days later on September 21, 2022, counsel filed a proposed order which indicates that the provided address is Plaintiff’s “last known” address. On September 26, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to October 26, 2022. On October 14, 2022, a declaration from Linda Johnson was filed. Johnson explains that the service address provided for Defendant is his “last known” address, while the electronic email address provided is “current”. (Johnson Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) In light of this declaration, the motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Counsel’s motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 18th day of January 2023