Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC06212, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC06212    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, November 15, 2023

Case Name:                             RAUL GARCIA v. KATHLEEN MIYASHIRO, ANA FRANCISCA BELTRAN GOMEZ, JOHN DOE, and DOES 1 to 5

Case No.:                                22STLC06212

Motion:                                   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:                         Armen Shaghzo, Esq. (Plaintiff’s Counsel of Record)

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Armen Shaghzo, Esq.’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

            On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff Raul Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kathleen Miyashiro (“Miyashiro”), Ana Francisca Beltran Gomez (“Gomez”), John Doe, and Does 1 to 5, asserting two causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

            The Attachment to the Complaint for the second cause of action alleges the following. On September 26, 2020, Defendant John Doe negligently owned, operated, maintained, controlled, and/or drove their motor vehicle at a dangerously high speed. As John Doe approached the traffic ahead of them in lane “#5,” they abruptly changed into lane #4, rear-ending Defendant Gomez’s vehicle and causing it to spin out of control towards Defendant Miyashiro’s vehicle in lane #5. Miyashiro evaded Gomez’s vehicle by moving to the right onto lane #6 and, in doing so, caused her vehicle to collide with a vehicle in front of them in which Plaintiff was a passenger. As a direct and proximate result of that collision, Plaintiff was severely injured.

            On August 11, 2023, Armen Shaghzo, Esq. (“Counsel”) filed the instant motion to be relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

            As of November 9, 2023, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

            A non-jury trial is scheduled for March 21, 2024, and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on September 25, 2025.

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

            Counsel states there has been a breakdown in communication between him and Plaintiff. If the Court desires further information, Counsel asks the Court to have an in-camera hearing outside the presence of all other parties to protect attorney-client privilege.  

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

            None.

ANALYSIS

I.          MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

A.        Legal Standard

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, an attorney moving to be relieved as counsel must do the following:

(1)   File a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-051));

(2)   Submit 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)   Serve the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and

(4)   Lodge a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-053)).

B.        Discussion

Counsel states that there has been a breakdown in his communications with Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to contact Counsel after a year of Counsel’s attempts to reach him at his last known address and phone number. (Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (MC-052), Item 3c.)

The Court finds that Counsel has provided a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4) [allowing an attorney to withdraw from representing if “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively …”].)

The Court also finds that Counsel has complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, by filing the required forms. The Court notes that Counsel put in his moving papers that the hearing date for this motion was September 26, 2023. At the time of filing of the motion, that was correct. The Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to its current date of November 15, 2023. (See Minute Order, dated September 21, 2023 [asking the clerk to give notice of the continued hearing to Plaintiff and ordering Plaintiff to give notice to other parties].)

In light of the findings above and the fact that there is no evidence that Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Plaintiff, the Court finds it proper to grant the motion.

II.        CONCLUSION

            Armen Shaghzo, Esq.’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Raul Garcia upon counsel filing a proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil.”

Moving party to give notice.