Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV12685, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12685    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: R. Ethan Posey of Wolfe & Wyman LLP  

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed  

I.            INTRODUCTION

The complaint arises from Plaintiff Gianna Pilato (“Plaintiff”) injuring herself while riding a motorized scooter. On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation (“CDOT”), Bird Rides, Inc. (“Bird”), Segway, Inc., and DOES 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for premises liability, strict liability, and negligence.

On October 3, 2022, Defendant Bird filed a petition to compel arbitration (the “Petition”). On December 8, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Bird’s Petition and compelled arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bird. The Court stayed this action pending the completion of arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant Bird.

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant County and Defendant County was dismissed from this action on December 22, 2022.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant Bird and Defendant Bird was dismissed from this action on December 27, 2022. 

On July 20, 2023, the Court held a status conference re: arbitration, and the Court lifted the stay of this action in its entirety.

On December 18, 2023, Defendant CDOT was dismissed from this action pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for dismissal filed on December 14, 2023.

On January 3, 2024, R. Ethan Posey of Wolfe & Wyman LLP filed and served the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant City. Trial in this action is not currently set.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)   

 An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

 Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

III.        DISCUSSION

R. Ethan Posey of Wolfe & Wyman LLP declares that the attorney-client relationship has been compromised and a withdrawal of representation is necessary due to the non-payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses. (Form MC-052.) Counsel declares that Defendant City has been advised of the status of the case. (Id.)

The proof of service in support of the motion indicates that the motion was served on Defendant City by mail and by electronic service. Counsel attests to verifying Defendant City’s current address through the website of Defendant City. (Form MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1)(d).)  

Counsel has stated a valid basis to be relieved as counsel. The Court, however, cannot grant the motion as counsel did not complete the MC-051 Form. The Court notes that while the caption box on the MC-051 Form does set forth the hearing date, time, and location pertaining to the motion, counsel did not set forth the date or time in Section 2 of such form. (Form MC-051, ¶ 2(a).) Also, Section 3 on the MC-051 Form is left blank as counsel did not specify what supporting declaration accompanies the motion. (Form MC-051, ¶ 3.)

Thus, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant City to Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 1:30 PM in this department, for counsel correct the above identified deficiencies.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant City is CONTINUED to Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 1:30 PM in this department. Counsel is instructed to file and serve a revised motion at least 16 court days before the continued hearing in accordance with CCP § 1005(b).

Moving party is ordered 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 6th day of February 2024