Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21207, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21207    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 8, 2020. On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff Ana Luisa Matul Lopez Gomez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Aurelio Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Joy Max Trading, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against the same Defendants, alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle and two causes of action for general negligence.

On December 12, 2023, Jacqueline Bouche, counsel for Sanchez (“Counsel”), filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is unopposed.

On February 7, 2024, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to permit Counsel to correct deficiencies noted in the Court’s prior tentative ruling on this motion. On February 8, 2024, Counsel submitted an amended declaration and proposed order.

II.          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).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Bouche Decl., ¶ 2.) 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.)

However, the Court still finds some issues with Counsel’s motion, despite the amended declaration and proposed order. First, there is no proof of service of these new documents on Plaintiff or on the other parties to this action, whereas the moving papers contained such a proof of service. (See Motion (12/12/23); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

Second, paragraph 3, subdivision (a)(2), of Counsel’s declaration conflicts with paragraph 6 of the new proposed order, the former of which indicates service at Plaintiff’s last known address while the latter refers to Plaintiff’s current address. (See Bouche Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (2); Proposed Order, ¶ 6.)

Third, paragraph 6 of the proposed order does not contain Plaintiff’s telephone number. (Proposed Order, ¶ 6.) Paragraph 8 of the proposed order also fails to provide the time and place of the hearings identified therein. (Proposed Order, ¶ 8.)

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice.

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 21st day of February 2024