Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV21713, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21713    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            P. Ryan Banafshe of Banafshe Law Firm PC (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Woldeyesus Geberemedhin, Mesai Loffe, Netsanet Loffe, Lidya Seifu, and Estate of Abebash (collectively, Plaintiffs).  

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Counsel filed a single motion to be relieved as counsel for the five Plaintiffs.  Instead, Counsel should have filed separate motions as to each Plaintiff for a total of five motions. The Court will therefore order Counsel to pay an additional $240 in filing fees, at $60 per filing fee. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

Further, the Court notes that Counsel has failed to identify Plaintiff Estate of Abebash in the notice of motion to be relieved as counsel.  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112, subdivision (d)(2), a motion must name the parties to whom it is addressed.  Here, Counsel has failed to name Plaintiff Estate of Abebash as one of the parties to whom the motion to be relieved is being addressed.  The Court therefore denies the motion to be relieved as counsel regarding Plaintiff Estate of Abebash for improper notice.

ANALYSIS

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052.  The basis for the motion is a break-down in the attorney-client relationship.  This is a valid reason for withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.) 

However, Counsel has failed to file proofs of service in connection with the motion to indicate that Counsel served the notice of the motion, declaration in support of the motion, and proposed order on Plaintiffs and all other parties who have appeared in the action, as required.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d) [“[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case”].)  Here, the proofs of service indicate that Counsel only served counsel for Defendant David De Poto. 

The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective.  In addition, the Court orders Counsel to pay an additional $240 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before March 30, 2023.

Counsel is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.