Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV19018, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: LA Century Law and attorneys of record for LA Century Law (“LAC”)

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 11, 2020. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff Rosa Coles Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Antonio Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Does 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for Motor Vehicle and General Negligence.

On November 13, 2023, LA Century Law and their attorneys of record (“LAC”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff (the “Motion”).

On November 27, 2023, the Court vacated the OSC re: Dismissal scheduled for June 7, 2024. On November 27, 2023, the Court scheduled an OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) for February 27, 2024.

On December 1, 2023, LAC filed and served a Proof of Service as to the Motion. The Proof of Service shows that Plaintiff and Defendant were served with the Motion on December 1, 2023.

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.)

Laila Hawatmeh declares that Plaintiff “has been unresponsive to LA Century Law.” (Form MC-052.) Multiple attempts have been made to contact Plaintiff, which have failed, and the representation of Plaintiff has become unreasonably difficult to carry out. (Id.) There has been a total and irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Id.)

LAC has stated a valid basis to be relieved as counsel. The Motion, however, cannot be granted. While the MC-052 Form indicates that Plaintiff was personally served with the Motion papers, the Proof of Service contradicts such fact. Plaintiff was served with the Motion via e-mail on December 1, 2023.[1] (12/01/23 Proof of Service.) Moreover, based on the Proof of Service, Plaintiff was not served with the MC-053 Form (Proposed Order).

Additionally, Plaintiff and Defendant were not served with the Motion at least 16 court days prior to the hearing. “[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served . . . at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Here, the parties were served with the Motion only 11 court days before the hearing. LAC therefore has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] LAC has not complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d)(2) which requires “a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address” where a notice of motion, declaration, and proposed order are served on a client by electronic service.