Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV37435, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37435 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27
HEARING DATE: October 24, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 11,
2024
CASE: John Alver Mendoza Tolentino, et al. v. Binghui Zhao, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV37435
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Mark W.
Eisenberg, Pomponio Law Firm, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 31, 2023, Mark W. Eisenberg, counsel for Plaintiffs,
John Alver Mendoza Tolentino, Safia Tolentino, a minor by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, John Alver Mendoza Tolentino, and Savannah Tolentino, a
minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, John Alver Tolentino, 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
Mark W. Eisenberg seeks to be relieved as counsel of record
for Plaintiffs for the following reason: “Plaintiffs have moved-on from their
last known address never providing their counsel a forwarding address.
Plaintiffs telephone number has since been disconnect. No new phone number for plaintiffs was
provided plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffs counsel has received no communications
from plaintiffs for more than 6-months. All efforts to locate plaintiffs have been
unsuccessful.” (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 complies with
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
the Motion is GRANTED and effective upon the filing of proof of service of this
signed order on Plaintiffs.
Counsel to give notice.
Dated: October 24,
2023 ___________________________________
Kerry
Bensinger
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.