Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 18STCV00734, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 18STCV00734    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 27


f

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ADI AKE LOPEZ, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 18STCV00734

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 30, 2024

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff Lucila Ake Iuit’s counsel, Suzanna Abrahamian, Tigran Martinian, and Andre Sherman filed the instant 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

Counsel seeks to be relieved on grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. 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.).

Here, there is no apparent prejudice. However, the declaration and order only specify that there is an OSC on March 26, 2024. It does not specify the subject matter of the OSC, and the order does not specify the time and place. Further, the order claims the client’s address is current, while the declaration states that counsel served the client at her last known address and were unable to confirm it.  Counsel need to make a concerted effort to locate and notify Plaintiff of a motion to withdraw as counsel.  That was not done here.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Counsel’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

 

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 30th day of January 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court