Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV16181, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16181    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

PROCORO VAZQUEZ, individually; MARGOT CORDOVA, individually; PROCORO VAZQUEZ and MARGOT CORDOVA as Successors in Interest to EFREN CORDOVA VAZQUEZ, Deceased,

                   Plaintiffs,

          vs.

 

ANDREW RENE BURCIAGA; ANDREW BURCIAGA; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

 

                   Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.: 22STCV16181

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: LARA SHAPIRO’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 31, 2024

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Procoro Vazquez and Margot Cordova, individually and as Successors in Interest to Efren Cordova Vazquez, decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Andrew Rene Burciaga, Andrew Burciaga (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive for (1) negligence (wrongful death), (2) negligence (survival action), and (3) negligent entrustment. The complaint alleges on December 2, 2021, Defendant Andrew Rene Burciaga negligently drove Defendant Andrew Burciaga’s vehicle causing it to collide with Decedent’s vehicle resulting in death.

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint naming Doe 1 as Rochelle White, Doe 2 as Mary Christina Cardoza Baga, and Doe 3 as Betty Jewel Whitley.

On December 29, 2023, Attorney Lara Shapiro filed this instant motion to be relieved as counsel. No opposition has been filed.

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

Attorney Lara Shapiro declares there the attorney-client relationship has broken down past repair and requires her to withdraw.

Counsel has stated a valid basis to be relieved as counsel. Furthermore, Counsel avers Plaintiffs were served the motion papers by mail at their last known address confirmed as current within the past 30 days via telephone conversation. Moreover, the MC-053 Form indicates the Final Status Conference is scheduled for March 26, 2024 and the Jury Trial is set for Aril 9, 2024. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Attorney Lara Shapiro’s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of a proof of service of notice to Plaintiffs.

 

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 31st day of January 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court