Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01173, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01173    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  April Ayala v. Gisselle Moreno, et al. 

Motion of Mia Hong to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the motion of Mia Hong to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff without prejudice. 

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 April 12, 2024, plaintiff April Ayala (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Gisselle Moreno, Benito Moreno Baltazar, and Does 1 through 50, alleging the sole cause of action for negligence. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed defendant Benito Moreno Baltazar from this action without prejudice. 

On September 6, 2024, Mia Hong of Karns & Karns, LLP moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. 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 

Mia Hong of Karns & Karns, LLP (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel contends there has been a communication breakdown between Counsel and Plaintiff, that Plaintiff’s boyfriend at one point called Counsel’s office stating that Plaintiff did not want to be represented by Counsel, and that Counsel has attempted to effect a substitution but to no avail. (Hong Decl., ¶ 2.) 

The Court finds sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal here. 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 has also submitted the application, declaration, and proposed order on Judicial Council forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) 

However, the Court notes there is no proof of service of the moving papers on Plaintiff. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) While Counsel indicates having been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s current address, Counsel still must attempt to effect service. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d); Hong Decl., ¶ 3, subds. (b), (c).) Moreover, the proposed order is almost entirely incomplete. (Proposed Order (9/6/24).) Counsel must submit a completed proposed order, which would be effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion of Mia Hong to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff without prejudice. 

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