Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV02954, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV02954    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Salvador Carrillo Escobedo v. Martin Martinez, et al. 

Edward Damas’ Motion to be Relieved as Defendant Martinez Martin’s Counsel 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel without prejudice. If Counsel only seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Martin Martinez, the Court GRANTS the Motion and Counsel is ordered to submit a properly completed proposed Order that will be effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a personal injury action. On December 15, 2022, plaintiff Salvador Carrillo Escobedo (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Martin Martinez (Martinez), Morelos Tires & Wheels (Morelos) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 18, 2024, Edward Damas of Damas Law moved to be relieved as counsel for Defendants. The motion is unopposed. 

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).) 

DISCUSSION 

Edward Damas of Damas Law (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel. Counsel contends there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Damas Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this to be sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal. Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the client’s conduct that “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) Counsel also has provided the requisite application, declaration, and proposed order on Judicial Council forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) 

However, the Court notes some defects in the forms submitted. First, the notice of motion identifies the client as “Martinez Martin, et al.” (Notice of Motion, p. 1.) This not only incorrectly states Defendant Martinez’s name, but it also fails to clearly identify the other party, if any, for whom Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel. While the Court infers Counsel intended to include Morelos in the notice, (see Notice of Motion, ¶ 4, subd. (b)), it must be clearly stated to give Morelos proper notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112, subd. (d)(2) [“A motion must:… Name the parties to whom it is addressed.”]) The Court also notes that the proposed order was not completed at all. (See Proposed Order.) 

The Court further notes that default was previously entered against Martinez on June 14, 2023. (Request for Entry of Default (6/14/23); see Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386 [a defaulted defendant is out of court].) 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel without prejudice. If Counsel only seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Martin Martinez, the Court GRANTS the Motion and Counsel is ordered to submit a properly completed proposed Order that will be effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.