Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV02279, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02279    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

CHARNICE EDWARDS, an individual ; SA’RYE ZION CRAVER, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem CHARNICE EDWARDS; AH’LAYSIA MAHOGANIE WILLIAMS, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem CHARNICE EDWARDS; and MYSTERI CHARM JONES, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem CHARNICE EDWARDS,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

 

vs.

 

 

L.A. GARDENS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation; CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

 

Defendants.

 

Case No. 23STCV02279

 

Department 45

 

 

[Tentative] Order

 

 

Action Filed: 02/02/23

Trial Date: 08/11/25

 

 

Hearing Date:             October 3, 2024

Moving Parties:           Michael Juarez-Munoz, Counsel for Plaintiffs Charnice Edwards, Sa’Rye Zion Craver, Ah’Laysia Mahoganie Williams, & Mysteri Charm Jones

Responding Party:       None

 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Charnice Edwards, Sa’Rye Zion Craver, Ah’Laysia Mahoganie Williams, & Mysteri Charm Jones

 

The court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition was received.

The court GRANTS counsel Michael Juarez Munoz’s (Counsel) motion to be relieved as counsel on condition that counsel serve a copy of the signed order on the clients and on all parties that have appeared in this case and that Counsel file such proof of service with the Court within 10 days from the date of this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e). Counsel shall be relieved as counsel of record effective upon: (1) the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on plaintiffs Charnice Edwards, Sa’Rye Zion Craver, Ah’Laysia Mahoganie Williams, & Mysteri Charm Jones (collectively, Plaintiffs); and (2) the filing of the proofs of service of the signed order on defendants L.A. Gardens Community Association and California Commercial Investment Group, Inc. (collectively, Defendants).

 

Discussion

 

Counsel moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs.

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.) California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(10) provides that a permissive request for withdrawal may be properly granted where an attorney believes that the tribunal will find good cause for withdrawal.

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) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; (3) 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)); and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

Here, Counsel complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. First, Counsel served Plaintiffs and Defendants by mail and electronic mail with copies of the motion papers filed with his declaration, and copies of the proofs of service was filed with the court at least five days prior to the hearing, fulfilling the first two requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. (Counsel Decl., Proof of Service.) Next, in the attorney declaration (Form MC-052), Counsel indicates that there has been an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship due to an inability to resolve issues. (Counsel Decl., ¶ 2.) This is a proper basis for withdrawal under California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(10), fulfilling the third requirement. Finally, Counsel filed a proposed order relieving counsel, fulfilling the fourth requirement.

The court finds that Counsel’s withdrawal will not prejudice Plaintiff’s because trial is almost a year away, on August 11, 2025.

The court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel on condition that “a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case” and that Counsel file such proof of service with the Court within 10 days from the date of this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e). The Court will sign the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel-Civil with the following modifications: (1) the trial date in paragraph 8 will be changed to August 11, 2025; and (2) the trial date in paragraph 9(b) will be changed to August 11, 2025. Counsel shall be relieved as counsel of record effective upon: (1) the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on Plaintiffs; and (2) the filing of the proofs of service of the signed order on Defendants.

It is so ordered.

Date:   October 3, 2024

 

______________________

Mel Red Recana

Judge of the Superior Court