Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff Madeline Ocampo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants McDonald’s, McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s Corp.”) and MCRU, Inc, (“MCRU”) for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 9, 2023, McDonald’s Corp and MCRU filed answers. 

On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq., filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on August 4, 2023. 

There is no currently scheduled trial date. 

COUNSEL’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq., requests to be relieved as counsel. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Rules 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, declaration, and proposed order on the client and 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.  The motion should be granted if there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s counsel submitted completed MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053 forms. Counsel has provided a declaration stating there have been irreconcilable differences and a breakdown in communication between attorney and client. Counsel stated he served Plaintiff at her last known address via mail. Counsel was unable to confirm the address after calling Plaintiff’s last known phone number and conducting a TLO search. 

Counsel did not submit proof of service on all parties that have appeared in this action, as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, requires. The Court continues the hearing on the motion and orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file proof of service on all parties prior to the hearing. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel to August 31, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Bottom of Form