Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV39898, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV39898 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Lee Arian, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 30, 2023 TRIAL DATE: Vacated
CASE: Guillermo Zertuche v. Regal Entertainment Group, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV39898
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Daniel
Azizi, Downtown L.A. Law Group
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 8, 2023, Daniel Azizi, counsel for Plaintiff Guillermo
Zertuche, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.
The Motion
is unopposed.
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
Daniel Azizi seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for
Plaintiff for the following reason: “This motion is based upon the grounds that
there has been an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship
that stands in the way of effective representation.” (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
the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Specifically, Counsel has not filed proof of
service showing Plaintiff was personally served with this motion. (See Item 3a.(1) of Form MC-052.) The Court will continue the hearing to allow
Counsel to correct this defect.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
the hearing on the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel scheduled for 10/30/2023
is continued to 12/07/2023 at 01:30 PM in Department 27 at Spring Street
Courthouse. Counsel is to file proof of
service no later than 5 court days before the hearing.
Counsel to give notice.
Dated: October 30,
2023 ___________________________________
Lee
Arian
Judge
of the Superior Court
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.