Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV32020, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV32020, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32020 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Hearing Date: 11/13/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV32020 KONSTANTINOS J. BASDONNY vs ADRIAN MICHAEL PARRIS, et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff’s Counsel Raymond Feldman

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Insufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS DENIED

Background

Attorney Raymond Feldman represents Plaintiff. Feldman 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¿

Feldman has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Feldman 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 uncertain whether counsel was able to effectively serve Plaintiff with the current motion, as counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff by phone and email but was unable to confirm Plaintiff’s current mailing address. Additionally, the next hearing, an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal, is set for November 21, 2024, only eight days away. This timeframe would likely be insufficient for Plaintiff to retain new counsel, and withdrawal at this time could be prejudicial and disrupt the orderly process of justice. Accordingly, the 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.