Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV21298, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21298    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:  Defendant’s Counsel Mark R. Weiner & Associates; Raquel Vallejo; and Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLP

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and the Joinder to the Motion, are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On June 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Lisa Labrador, Luis Labrador, Shelby Lane, Maryam Motamed, Candace Saville, Emilee Saville, Kristen Renner, and Sophia Wilson filed their Complaint against Defendants Windrose Place, LLC, Cathy O’Conner, Mary Matyseck, and Alan Matyseck on a cause of action for negligence.

On August 25, 2021, Defendants Windrose Place, LLC and Cathy O’Conner filed their Answer.

On August 27, 2021, Defendants Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck filed their Answer.

On November 3, 2022, the Court found that cases 21STCV21298 and 22AHCV00281 are related and designated 21STCV21298 as the lead case.

On March 21, 2023, Mark R. Weiner & Associates and Raquel Vallejo, who are Counsel for Defendant Cathy O’Conner, filed: (1) Form MC-051, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Form MC-052, Declaration; and (3) MC-053, Proposed Order.

On March 30, 2023, Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLP, who are co-counsel for Defendant Cathy O’Conner, filed their Joinder to Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

No opposition or other response has been filed.

ANALYSIS:

I.                   Legal Standard 

An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).)

The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney's declaration must show that the client's address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.) 

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

II.        Discussion

Counsels’ Motion complies with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, in that Counsel provided notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel; proposed order granting attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel; and declaration in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel. The declaration states that the attorney-client relationship has completely broken down. Additionally, the declaration states that Counsels’ client has been served by mail at their last known address, which was confirmed within the past 30 days as current by conversation. (See Declaration, Item 3.b.(1)(c).)

Neither the Motion nor the Joinder have been opposed by any party to the case.

There appears to be minimal risk of prejudice if Counsel are allowed to leave their representation because trial is not scheduled in this matter until August 12, 2024, which means Defendant O’Conner has ample time to find new counsel should Defendant O’Conner so choose.

 The Court GRANTS the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, including the Joinder to the Motion.

III.             Conclusion   

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and the Joinder to the Motion, are GRANTED.