Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV22394, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22394    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motions to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:  Plaintiff’s Whitney D. Ackerman

Resp. Party:    None

Counsel Ackerman’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On June 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Janet Denise Hernandez-Clark and Graciela Jimenez filed their Complaint against Defendant H&K Investments LLC, Basem Khader, Southern California Investments & Developments, Inc., Burbank Apartment Management, LLC, 17115 Chatsworth Apartments, LLC, and 4717 Ben Apartments, LLC. This matter involves causes of action regarding Plaintiffs’ tenancy with Defendants.

On June 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.

On September 14, 2021, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Burbank Apartment Management, LLC, 4717 Ben Apartments, LLC, and Southern California Investments & Developments, Inc. from the First Amended Complaint.

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint for Damages. Among other things, the list of Plaintiffs now includes Janet Denise Hernandez-Clark, Graciela Jimenez, Dubwana Clark, Dubwana Clark II, Nascha Clark, Jadore Clark, and Nakai Clark.

On May 13, 2022, Defendants H.K. Investment, L.L.C. (erroneously sued as H&K Investments LLC) and Basem Khader filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

On February 8, 2023, Forms MC-051, Motions to be Relieved as Counsel, were filed by counsel (Whitney D. Ackerman) for the following six Plaintiffs: (1) Janet Denise Hernandez-Clark; (2) Dubwana Clark; (3) Dubwana Clark II; (4) Jadore Clark; (5) Nakai Clark; and (6) Nascha Clark. Each of Motions included a Form MC-052, Declaration, and a Proposed Order. Counsel Ackerman did not file a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Graciela Jimenez.

No oppositions or other responses have 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

Counsel Ackerman’s Motions comply 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. Additionally, the declaration states that Counsel’s client has been served by mail at their last known address, which was confirmed current within the past 30 days. (See Declarations, No. 3(a)(2) and (b)(1)(d).)

The Motions have not been opposed by any party to the case.

If Counsel is allowed to leave this representation, there appears to be significant risk of prejudice to these Plaintiffs because Trial is scheduled for approximately two months from now. However, the Declaration indicates that there is good cause for the proposed withdrawal of representation, and Counsel requests that the Court hold an in camera hearing outside the presence of all other parties in case the Court needs further information. Given that there is no opposition to the Motions, the Court does not need an in camera hearing. counsel.

III.     Conclusion   

Counsel Ackerman’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are GRANTED.