Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25721, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25721    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:                    4/11/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.:         22STCV25721 EDGAR RAMON SANDOVAL GARCIA, et al. vs JAMES MICHAEL PARFITT

Motion:                              MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Moving Party:                 Plaintiffs’ Counsel Cohen & Marzban

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Notice:                                Sufficient

Ruling:                               THE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED IS GRANTED.

Background

Cohen & Marzban, Law Corporation represents Plaintiffs Edgar Ramon Sandoval Garcia and Mariana Juliette Sandoval Garcia. Cohen & Marzban moves to be relieved as counsel, citing considerable difference of opinion regarding handling of the case leading to an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Although no opposition has been filed, Cohen & Marzban did file a supplemental declaration on March 26, 2024, stating that Plaintiffs intend to appear at the hearing to be heard.

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

¿ 

Cohen & Marzban has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Cohen & Marzban 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 Court notes that the next hearing is an FSC set for 7/23/24, which should be sufficient time for Plaintiffs to retain new counsel. Alternatively, if Plaintiffs or new counsel need additional time to prepare for trial, sufficient time exists for Plaintiffs to take action to seek a continuance of the trial.

The Court understands that Plaintiffs intend to appear at the hearing; the Court will, of course, hear from the Parties, although it notes that Plaintiffs have failed to file a written opposition, which can be deemed to waive all arguments against the Motion (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5^th 476, 483 fn. 7).  Tentatively, based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to be Relieved, effective upon Notice on Plaintiffs.

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿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.