Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV02694, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02694 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: K
Counsel for Plaintiff Juvani Licea’s (i.e.,
BD&J, 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 Client at the Client’s last known address,
return receipt requested.
Background
Plaintiff Juvani Licea (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she
sustained injuries in a September 4, 2021 motor vehicle accident.
On September
1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Beth
Meryl Fogel and Does 1-20 for:
1.
General
Negligence
2.
Motor
Vehicle
A Case
Management Conference is set for January 24, 2024.
BD&J, PC (“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
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 Malek H. Shraibati (“Shraibati”) represents, in relevant
part, that “[t]here has been a significant breakdown in the attorney-client
relationship, which has significantly impeded counsel's ability to effectively
prosecute this case and represent Plaintiff's interests.” Shraibati advises that “[a] voluntary
substitution of attorney form could not be obtained from Plaintiff, who no
longer responds to calls and/or mailings.”
Shraibati represents that he has
served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the
motion papers served with his declaration. Shraibati represents that he has
been unable to confirm that the address is current or to locate a more current
address for the Client after mailing the motion papers to the Client’s last
known address, return receipt requested, calling the Client’s last known
telephone number(s) and commissioning the services of a private investigator.
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
showing
service of the signed order upon
the Client at the Client’s last known address, return receipt
requested.