Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV25421, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25421, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25421 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Hearing Date: 1/23/2025 at 1:30 p.m.

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV25421 ROSA ZEPEDA, et al. vs GEVORG ALIKHANYAN

Moving Party: Plaintiff’s George Mgdesyan

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: Court will hear from counsel

Background

Attorney George Mgdesyan represents Plaintiff. Mgdesyan moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. 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¿

Mgdesyan has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Mgdesyan seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. (See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw).)

The next hearing consists of motions to compel initial responses set for March 27, 2025, and the trial date is currently set for December 16, 2025, which should provide sufficient time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel.

The Court notes that, within the past 30 days, Plaintiff's address was confirmed to be current by counsel through Lexis Nexis. However, no additional information has been provided regarding what verification through Lexis Nexis entailed, the process used to verify the address, or the reliability of the verification. As a result, the Court is uncertain whether Plaintiff received notice of the present motion. The Court will hear from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the verification process.

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 (encouraged) 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.