Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00794, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00794    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: C

Jonathan David Mitrou vs Karen Yajaira Dorado Parra

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00794

HEARING:  11/14/23 @ 10:30 a.m.

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER 

Counsel Oliver Lasley’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan David Mitrou is GRANTED. 

Background

This is a negligence action arises from a motor vehicle accident occurring on March 16, 2021.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2023.

Legal Standard

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).) 

Discussion

Counsel, Oliver Lashley, seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan David Mitrou.

Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), an Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053), and a Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052) on the appropriate forms, as outlined within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (e).) 

Counsel testifies that he served Plaintiff by mail at his last known address and confirmed that address telephonically. (Lashley Decl., ¶ 2 and 3(b)(1)(b).) The Court is satisfied that Counsel has a compelling reason to withdraw as Counsel cites a significant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, which has significantly impeded counsel's ability to effectively prosecute this case and represent Plaintiff's interest. (Lashley Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if Counsel’s motion is granted. The next hearing in this matter is a case management conference set for December 29, 2023. Trial is not currently set. Thus, there is sufficient time for Plaintiff to engage new counsel.

Conclusion

Counsel’s, Oliver Lasley, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan David Mitrou is GRANTED.