Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19STCV10115, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 19STCV10115    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: O

Counsel for Plaintiffs Lucia Melo’s, Asiano Robles’, Flor Robles’ and Mauricio Robles’ (i.e., The Brinton Firm, PC) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Clients at the Clients’ last known address.

Background    

Plaintiffs Lucia Melo, Asiano Robles, Flor Robles and Mauricio Robles (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs reside at 514 La Seda, La Puente, CA, 91744 (“subject property”), per an oral lease with Defendant Maria DeRosario Castro (“Maria”). Defendant Manuel Castro (“Manuel”) holds title to the subject property and, along with Maria, acts as its landlord. The subject property is unpermitted, infested with vermin, mold and mildew and has a severely collapsed ceiling. Manuel and Maria have failed to repair and maintain the subject property.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Manuel, Maria and Does 1-20 for:

1.               Negligence

2.               Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

3.               Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4

4.               Violation of California Civil Code § 17200, et seq. 

On May 28, 2019, this case was transferred from Department 2 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department. 

On June 1, 2022, Maria filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiffs and Does 1-10 for: 

1.            Wrongful Detainer

2.            Negligence 

The Final Status Conference is set for November 15, 2022. Trial is set for November 29, 2022. 

Discussion 

The Brinton Firm, PC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs (“Clients”).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. 

Attorney Matthew L. Brinton (“Brinton”) states in his declaration that “[t]he attorney-client relationship has broken down, due to certain actions taken by the Plaintiffs prior to and during this litigation (but not disclosed to counsel), including actions directed at the Defendant herein which may violate state and local law. Plaintiffs have also wholly failed to communicate with counsel and have refused all attempts at contact . . .” 

Brinton states that he has served the Clients by mail at the Clients’ last known address with copies of the motion papers filed with this declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via telephone.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Clients at the Clients’ last known address.