Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27123, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27123    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:           5/1/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.:      22STCV27123 COREY BROWN vs EGL PROPERTIES

Motion:                    MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Moving Party:           Plaintiff’s Counsel Nia Gamble

Responding Party:    Unopposed

Notice:                     Insufficient

Ruling:                     MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS DENIED.

Background

Attorney Nia Gamble represents Plaintiff. Gamble 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

Gamble has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Gamble 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 is unclear whether Plaintiff has been properly served. Counsel states that she confirmed Plaintiff’s current address within the past 30 days through a TLO background search. However, no information has been provided about what a TLO background search entails or how counsel was able to confirm Plaintiff's address through such a search. Moreover, a copy of the search results was not submitted for the Court to assess the reliability of that search. Consequently, the present motion is denied.

 ¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

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.