Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV28004, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV28004, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28004 Hearing Date: January 3, 2025 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Hearing Date: 1/3/2025 at 1:30 p.m.

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV28004 CHARLES EDWARD ANDERSON vs. HERTZ Corporation, et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff’s Counsel Anthony T. Nehme

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: COURT WILL HEAR FROM THE PARTIES

Background

Attorney Anthony T. Nehme represents Plaintiff. Nehme moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard¿

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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

Analysis and Conclusion¿

Nehme has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Nehme seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. (See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw).)

The Court notes that within the past 30 days, Plaintiff's address was confirmed to be current by counsel through a phone call. The next hearing is an MSJ set for 2/27/25. The Court is concerned that granting this motion at this time given the upcoming MSJ would be prejudicial to Plaintiff. The Court will hear from the parties regarding this concern.