Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24PSCV00303, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 24PSCV00303    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: K

Counsel for Plaintiff Kimberly Sanchez’s (i.e., The Nitka Firm) Motion to be Relieved as

Counsel is GRANTED, contingent upon counsel providing a proof of service, at or before

the time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) notice to Plaintiff

and effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order, return

receipt requested, upon Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s last known address.

Background    

Plaintiff Kimberly Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained injuries and damages in a February 1, 2022 motor vehicle accident.

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Zhenia Alcaraz and Does 1-50 for:

1.               Negligence

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for July 9, 2024. 

Discussion

The Nitka Firm (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

Notice

The motion was filed on June 6, 2024 and set for hearing on July 9, 2024. The motion was not accompanied by a proof of service, nor has a proof of service since been filed, to date (i.e., as of July 2, 2024, 11:26 a.m.)

The following analysis, then, is contingent upon counsel for Plaintiff filing a proof of service,

at or before the time of the hearing, reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, subdivision (b)

notice to Plaintiff.

Merits

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 David Nitka (“Nitka”) represents that he has not had contact with Plaintiff for more than one year, despite his attempts to reach Plaintiff.

Nitka states that he has served Plaintiff by mail at Plaintiff’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this declaration, but that he has been unable to confirm that the address is current or to locate a more current address for Plaintiff after mailing the motion papers to Plaintiff’s last known address, return receipt requested, calling Plaintiff’s last telephone number(s) and emailing Plaintiff at her email address.

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 a proof of service showing

service of the signed order, return receipt requested, upon Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s last known

address.