Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV23932, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23932    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff Yeison Josue Garcia Rosales (“Yeison”), Sadam Jose Garcia Rosales (“Sadam”), and Katherine Michelle Cea (“Katherine Cea”) via Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) Nelson Garcia Rosales (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Season Marie Pipcox, Judy Berg (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 100, for motor vehicle liability.

On September 20, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff Katherine Cea through GAL Nelson Garcia requested the appointment of her new GAL. The Court approved the request, substituting Francisco Cea as the new GAL for Plaintiff Katherine Cea.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Aaron Brown, filed Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for (1) Plaintiff Yeison, (2) Plaintiff Sadam, and (3) Plaintiff Katherine Cea via GAL Francisco Cea,

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

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 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).)

“If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).)

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

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Aaron Brown of California Trial Team P.C. (“Counsel”), has filed completed forms MC-051 and MC-052 to be relieved as counsel for each of the 3 plaintiffs, and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required for each of the 3 plaintiffs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

For each of the 3 motions, Counsel states that “the California Trial Team P.C.” experienced “irreconcilable differences” with the plaintiff involved and that “California Trial Team P.C. can no longer represent plaintiff in this matter.”  The basis for withdrawal in wahc instance is sufficient.  Thus, the Court analyzes separately below whether other requirements are met for withdrawal as to each plaintiff.

Plaintiff Yeison

Plaintiff Yeison was served notice through mail at his last known address. Counsel indicates in paragraph 3.b.(1)(d) of the MC-052 form that he has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current.

Additionally, the Further Confirmation of Service filed by Counsel on January 24, 2024, states that “I attach true and correct copies of the USPS confirmation that Mr. Yeison Garcia Rosales received the served document.” (1/24/24 Proof of Service, at 1:23-24.)

The remaining hearings in this matter include a Final Status Conference on May 8, 2024, an Order to Show Case Re: Dismissal on July 22, 2024, and a Jury Trial on May 22, 2024.  There is sufficient time for Plaintiff to find new counsel.  Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to withdraw as to Plaintiff Yeison.

Plaintiff Sadam

Plaintiff Sadam was served notice through mail at his last known address. Counsel indicates in paragraph 3.b.(1)(d) of the MC-052 form that he has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current.

The remaining hearings in this matter include a Final Status Conference on May 8, 2024, and an Order to Show Case Re: Dismissal on July 22, 2024. Additionally, a Jury Trial is scheduled for May 22, 2024.  There is sufficient time for Plaintiffs to find their new counsel.

Therefore, the Court grants Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Sadam.

Plaintiff Cea

Plaintiff Katherine Cea was served notice through mail at her last known address. Although Counsel indicates in paragraph 3.b.(1)(d) of MC-052 form that he has confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current, the declaration shows the effective confirmation date as May 10, 2023, which does not fall within the past 30 days from the filing of the declaration. Counsel also acknowledges in his declaration that he has “diligently attempted to reach GAL Francisco Cea to confirm his addresses more recently, but has been unsuccessful.” Accordingly, the Court identifies a conflict based on the discrepancies in the declaration.

Additionally, the Further Confirmation of Service filed by Counsel on January 24, 2024, states that “The USPS confirmation for Francisco Cea and [sic] has not yet been received.” (1/24/24 Proof of Service, at 1:24-25.)

Accordingly, the Court determines that Counsel was unable to confirm the current address of Plaintiff Katherine Cea via GAL Francisco Cea. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).) Consequently, Counsel is required to provide information under paragraph 3.b.(2) of the MC-052 form, which Counsel has failed to do.

Therefore, the Court denies Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of  Plaintiff Cea due to incomplete submission of the MC-052 form.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff and Plaintiff Sadam are GRANTED, effective upon the filing of a proof of service demonstrating effective notice of this ruling on the impacted plaintiff. Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Katherine Cea is DENIED.

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 8^th Day of February 2024