Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24CHUD00959, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 24CHUD00959    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles 

Hearing date:              November 26, 2024

Moving Party:             Areg A. Sarkisian, Counsel for Plaintiff, Judith Collie

Responding Party:      None

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Judith Collie

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

The court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.

Background

On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff Judith Collie (“Plaintiff”) filed her Complaint against Defendants Hermes Mejia, Aracely Santoyo, & Does 1-10, (“Defendants”), alleging unlawful detainer. Plaintiff is the owner of the Manufactured Home located at 24425 Woolsey Canyon Road Space 46, West Hills, CA 91304 (the “Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated their Written Promissory Note/ Security Agreement by failing to renew the insurance policy for the Premises. On June 22, 2024, Defendants were served with a Three Day Notice to Perform Covenants Or Quit. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants unlawfully hold over and continue possession of the Premises after the expiration of said notice without permission of Plaintiff.

The Demurrer hearing is set for January 10, 2025. Trial is not yet set.

Discussion 

Areg A. Sarkisian (“Counsel”) of the Sarkissian Law Group now moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Judith Collie.

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 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure, section 284, subdivision (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 and declaration on 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)). 

Here, Counsel has filed Civil forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel), MC-052 (Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Counsel served Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants with copies of the motion papers and her declaration by mail and email, respectively, on November 13, 2024. The instant motion was originally scheduled to be heard on January 9, 2025 but was advanced to November 26, 2024 by Plaintiff’s ex parte application (Minute Order dated November 19, 2024.)

Counsel has shown proper basis for withdrawal and that withdrawal will not prejudice Plaintiff. Prof. 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. Counsel is filing this motion to withdraw from legal representation due to lack of communication and non-payment of fees. (MC-052, Items 2 and 7.) Counsel declares that there has been a breakdown of communication that has created an unreasonably difficult situation. (Id.) Counsel attests that Plaintiff has breached the terms of their retainer agreement by not paying her outstanding invoice. (Id.) Despite Counsel’s numerous attempts to contact Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been unresponsive. This is a proper basis for withdrawal. (California Professional Code of Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(5).) Additionally, there is no trial scheduled. The Demurrer hearing is set for January 10, 2025. However, in light of the Demurrer hearing, Counsel requested, ex parte, that the Court advance the hearing on the instant motion, which was granted. There is no reason to believe that Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Plaintiff.

The court therefore GRANTS Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, on the grounds that Counsel has complied with the proper forms, service, and has explained a proper basis for withdrawal that is not likely to prejudice Plaintiff.

It is so ordered. 

Dated:  November 26, 2024

_______________________ 

MEL RED RECANA 

Judge of the Superior Court