Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV23083, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23083 Hearing Date: May 2, 2025 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CELIN FLORES, Plaintiff, vs. ADRIANA DEL ROCIO, et al. Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE RULING] MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS
GRANTED Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. May 2, 2025 |
Background
Attorney Hesam Yazdanpanah represents
Plaintiff. Yazdanpanah 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
Yazdanpanah has filed Judicial Council
Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053
(Proposed Order). Yazdanpanah seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on
the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship
and communication. 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 or communication is grounds for allowing the
attorney to withdraw).)
The Court notes that although
Plaintiff’s address was not confirmed by counsel through direct contact within
the past 30 days, counsel has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to
locate Plaintiff’s current address by mailing the motion to Plaintiff’s last
known address, calling the last known number, and conducting a skip trace using
Plaintiff’s address, driver’s license, and date of birth. Furthermore, counsel
served the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court at the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1011 and California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).
The next hearing
is an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal set for July 8, 2025, which provides
sufficient time for Plaintiff to retain new counsel. Furthermore, no trial date
has been set in this matter. Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel
is GRANTED, effective upon service on Plaintiff. (The Court notes service must be effected as
directed in CCP 1011 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention
to submit on the tentative as directed by
the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all
other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the
hearing to argue. If the Court does not
receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
|
|
|
Hon. Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court |