Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: BC673996, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC673996 Hearing Date: November 1, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27
HEARING DATE: November 1, 2023 TRIAL DATE: December
7, 2023
CASE: Cecilia Romero v. Sydney T. Spice, et al.
CASE NO.: BC673996
MOTION
TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Fred G.
Muscarella, Muscarella & Associates
RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 1, 2023, Fred G. Muscarella, counsel for Defendant
Brian Egan filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved
as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the
client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil
form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without
compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a
motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of
filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration
in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052));
(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 (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as
Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).
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.)
III. DISCUSSION
Fred G. Muscarella seeks to be relieved as counsel of record
for Defendant, Brian Egan, for the following reasons: “Attorney has performed
services to the best of Attorney's ability as initially set forth on the
written retention agreement signed at the outset of the representation. Client
has been provided with a Substitution of Attorney on multiple occasions, but
Client has failed to sign and return Substitution of Attorney. Additionally,
irreconcilable differences have arisen between Client and Attorney which
renders the representation unreasonably difficult to further carry out
effectively.” (MC-052.)
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.).
Upon review, the Court finds the Motion complies with California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
IV. CONCLUSION
The
unopposed Motion is granted and effective upon the filing of the proof of
service of this order upon Defendant.
Counsel to
give notice.
Dated: November 1,
2023 ___________________________________
Lee
S. Arian
Judge
of the Superior Court
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 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.