Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV05598, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05598    Hearing Date: March 20, 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

            Analicia Avila of The Dominguez Firm (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Isaac Garcia Contreras (“Plaintiff”).

            The Court notes that Counsel has filed forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 per California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. (CRC, Rule 3.1362.) The basis for the motion is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16.)

However, the Court notes that Counsel has not signed the declaration in support of the motion, i.e., form MC-052. Counsel also has failed to indicate under item 3a of form MC-052 as to whether Counsel served Plaintiff with copies of the motion by personal delivery or mail. While the Court notes under item 3b that Counsel appears to have attempted to confirm Plaintiff’s last known address before serving the motion by mail, the Court finds the statements to be unreliable because Counsel did not sign the declaration. 

Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the motion as procedurally defective.  Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.