Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV20445, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20445    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:      6/22/2022

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Department 27  

Tentative Ruling 

Hearing Date:           3/5/2024 at 1:30 p.m.   

Case No./Name.:      22STCV20445 CAROL DANIELS, et al. vs MARIA DULCE PENALOZA

Motion:                    MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Moving Party:           Plaintiff’s Counsel Howard S. Blumenthal

Responding Party:    Plaintiffs Carol Daniels and Alvin Daniel

Notice:                     Sufficient   

Ruling:                     MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS GRANTED.

Background

On 6/22/2022, Plaintiffs Carol Daniels and Alvin Daniel initiated a vehicle accident lawsuit against Defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by Attorney Howard S. Blumenthal. Initially, the trial was scheduled for 4/17/2024. Parties stipulated and continued the trial to 6/20/2024. On 1/31/2024, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, which rendered it unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiff's counsel to continue representing Plaintiffs. 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

Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Sheehan Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) The Court further finds that the moving party has filed the required documents to be relieved.

The trial date for this action has been continued to June 20, 2024, which should be sufficient time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel. Thus, the Court finds that granting the motion will not prejudice Plaintiff and not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  Plaintiff’s non-opposition supports this finding.  Thus, the motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿ 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.      

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

¿¿¿¿¿ 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.