SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel 

Plaintiff Janelle Howard (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Steven Ross / Downtown LA Law Group, LLP (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel contending relief is necessary because the attorney-client relationship has broken down.  

Counsel has attached a proof of service demonstrating service of the motion, declaration, and proposed order on Plaintiff and on Defendant California Department of Transportation.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) However, California Department of Transportation was dismissed on September 21, 2023. Further, the proof of service does not indicate that Plaintiff served Defendant County of Los Angeles, who has appeared in this action as of October 13, 2022. 

However, Counsel declares he was unable to confirm Plaintiff’s current address after calling Plaintiff’s last known number, conducting a search, and attempting to mail letters to the last known address.  

If Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed physical address, Counsel must also serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court- located at Stanley Mosk Courthouse- pursuant to CCP §1011(b) and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d), in addition to any parties who have appeared in this case. 

Lastly, Counsel is requested to separately file MC-051, and MC-052, and MC-053 instead of condensing the papers into one filing, should Counsel move again to be relieved. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) 

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to be relieved as counsel is denied without prejudice. 

 

 Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

 

II. Motion To Continue Trial 

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff Janelle Howard (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and California Department of Transportation for damages arising from stepping into a pothole. Trial is currently set for February 16, 2024.    

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting the Court to continue the trial date to avoid potential prejudice to Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel avers a continuance is necessary because he filed a contemporaneous motion to be relieved as counsel on the same hearing reservation date, and that the purpose of the continuance is to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff due to the withdrawal. Plaintiff argues there are no defendants that are under general appearance before the Court on this matter, and that this is the first request for a trial continuance. 

However, contrary to the assertion that there has been no general appearance by any defendants, the Court notes that Defendant County of Los Angeles filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on October 13, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel’s proof of service demonstrates that the moving papers were served only on Plaintiff, and not on Defendant. (CCP §1005.) 

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to continue trial is denied without prejudice. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿ 

 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 8th day of December 2023