Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02669, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV02669 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Raquel Monica Garcia v. Trifone Tenerelli
Motion of Robert N. Tafoya to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Raquel Monica Garcia
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES the motion of Robert N. Tafoya to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Raquel Monica Garcia without prejudice.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is an auto accident case. On August 16, 2024, plaintiff Raquel Monica Garcia (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Trifone Tenerelli (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle.
On January 29, 2025, Robert Nacionales Tafoya of Tafoya Law Group 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
Robert Nacionales Tafoya of Tafoya Law Group (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on the grounds that a disagreement has arisen between Plaintiff and Counsel regarding the nature and scope of the legal representation and the future litigation of this case. (Tafoya Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this explanation vague and does not constitute sufficient grounds for withdrawal. It is unclear from Counsel’s declaration the extent to which this purported disagreement affects the representation. 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 did not present evidence of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship or evidence that Plaintiff’s conduct has rendered Counsel’s continued representation unreasonably difficult. The Court also notes Counsel’s citation to Rule 3-700(B)(1)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which is an outdated provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (See Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, adopted Nov. 1, 2018.) The Court admonishes Counsel to stay current on the law. (See id., rule 1.1 [competence].)
The Court notes other issues with Counsel’s motion, such as indicating that the declaration is continued on Attachment 2, but no such document is attached. (See generally, Tafoya Decl.) Paragraph 6 of the proposed order ticks the box for Plaintiff’s last known address, which contradicts Counsel’s declaration that he confirmed Plaintiff’s address is current. (Tafoya Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b); Proposed Order, ¶ 6.) Paragraph 6 of the proposed order also does not specify Plaintiff’s address and phone number. (Proposed Order, ¶ 6.) The Court further notes that the notice and declaration are addressed to “Monica Raquel Garcia,” rather than “Raquel Monica Garcia,” the latter of which is how Plaintiff is named in the complaint. (Compl., ¶ 1; Notice, ¶ 1; Tafoya Decl., ¶ 1.)
The Court also notes that it is unclear if Plaintiff was timely served. Counsel filed and served this motion on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant electronically and by mail on January 28, 2025. (Tafoya Decl., POS.) However, the deadline for proper notice of this motion by mail was January 27, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Thus, the mail service was untimely. With respect to electronic service, the deadline was January 29, 2025. (Id., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) However, Rule 3.1362, subdivision (d)(2), of the California Rules of Court requires a declaration attesting that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(2).) Counsel did not provide a declaration to that effect. Thus, it is unclear if Counsel properly served Plaintiff at her electronic service address.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion of Robert N. Tafoya to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Raquel Monica Garcia without prejudice.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.