Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV02261, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02261 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: K
The hearing on Counsel
for Plaintiff Carlos Adrian Cancela
Cabrera’s (i.e., Windsor Troy)
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to July 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. [see
below].
Background
Plaintiff Carlos Adrian Canela Cabrera (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he sustained injuries in a September 21, 2021 slip and fall.
Discussion
Windsor Troy (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff (“Client”).
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 Rules 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 Roberto Dominguez (“Dominguez”) represents that “[t]here has been a breakdown of the Attorney-Client Relationship,” that “[i]rreconcilable differences have arisen” between them “that make it impossible for representation to continue,” and that he is “unable to communicate with the Plaintiff in a manner consistent with an attorney-client relationship.”
Dominguez states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration. Dominguez, however, has failed to complete Paragraph 3.b. of Judicial Council Form MC-052 (i.e., advising whether or not he has confirmed within the past 30 days that the Client’s address is current and, if so, by what means and, if not, why he was unable to make such confirmation).
Accordingly, the court will continue the hearing on the motion, to July 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. Dominguez (or another attorney at Firm) is instructed to file and serve a supplemental declaration on the Client and on counsel for Winco providing the information requested in Paragraph 3.b. of Judicial Council Form MC-052 forthwith.
Firm is to provide notice.