Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26978, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26978    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Elina Shakhbazyan, seeks to be relieved because there has been a breakdown in communication. Plaintiff’s Counsel has been unable to locate or contact Plaintiff.

For a Motion to Withdraw, California Rule of Court 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client; (2) a declaration stating in general terms the basis for the withdrawal, without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship; (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel. Counsel’s Motion complies with Rule 3.1362. 

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)  Here, trial is currently set for February 16, 2024, with a final status conference on February 2, 2024.

The Court finds that no prejudice will result to Plaintiff in granting the Motion because the current trial date provides Plaintiff with sufficient time to engage other counsel to try the case or prepare for trial as a self-represented litigant.  Further, the trial and final status conference dates can be changed if necessary to ensure Plaintiff is not prejudiced by Counsel’s withdrawal.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel upon the filing of a proof of service by Counsel demonstrating that Plaintiff was given notice of this ruling. Such proof of service and filing of it must be completed within 7 calendar days of this ruling.

Dated: December 8, 2023