Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV03862, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03862    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: K

Counsel for Plaintiff David Raymond Dauer’s (i.e., Abkarian and Associates) Motion to be

Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing

service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.

Background   

Plaintiff David Raymond Dauer (“Plaintiff”) sustained injuries in a December 7, 2022 motor vehicle accident.

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Ulises Sanchez, Evans Good Group Ltd., Benestar Holdings, LLC and Does 1-50 for:

1.      Auto Negligence

A Case Management Conference is set for May 9, 2024.

Discussion

Abkarian and Associates (“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 Gregor Aleksanian (“Aleksanian”) represents that Firm is having difficulty communicating with the Client and that the Client insists on a course of action that is not agreeable. The Client advised Firm that he will seek new representation; however, the Client has not presented Firm with a substitution of counsel.

Aleksanian 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 and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, “by all available options.” The court notes that Aleksanian has failed to identify what options were available to him; however, the accompanying proof of service reflects that the Client has been served via certified mail.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above

have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motions are granted, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing

service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.