Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV24080, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24080    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Attorney Hesam Yazdanpanah represents Plaintiff. Yazdanpanah moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client communication. 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 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 and communication is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw)

Although Plaintiff’s mailing address was not confirmed to be current within the past 30 days, counsel has made sufficient efforts to verify Plaintiff’s address. These efforts include mailing the motion papers to Plaintiff’s last known address with return receipt requested, calling Plaintiff’s last known telephone number, and conducting a skip trace using Plaintiff’s last known address.

The Court notes that the next hearing is an OSC Re: Dismissal for failure to file proof of service set for June 25, 2025. On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service. The Court therefore vacates the OSC. There are no other hearings on calendar and no trial date has been set.  The Court will discuss a trial date with the parties today, as well as the efforts counsel made to reach Plaintiff.

The Court anticipates that after such discussion, it will grant the motion to be relieved as counsel 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).)