Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV21997, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV21997    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 34

Plaintiff Mayra Munoz’s Counsel Alexander Zaimi’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service showing service of the signed order.

Background

            On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff Mayra Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc., and Fatima Galo, erroneously sued as Fatima Doe (“Defendants”), arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants alleging causes of action for:

1.               Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA;

2.               Failure to Reasonably Accommodate in Violation of FEHA;

3.               Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA;

4.               Harassment Based on Disability in Violation of FEHA;

5.               Failure to Maintain a Workplace Free from Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;

6.               Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;

7.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and

8.               Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

On October 16, 2024, at the request of Plaintiff, the court dismissed Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. with prejudice.

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming Doe 1 as Defendant Prime Now LLC.

On November 25, 2024, Defendant Prime Now LLC filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On February 25, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff, Alexander Zaimi (“Counsel”), filed: (1) MC-051, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) MC-052, Declaration in Support of Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (3) MC-053, Proposed Order; and (4) Proof of Service. No opposition or other response has been filed.

Legal Standard

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).)

The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney's declaration must show that the client's address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Ibid.) 

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

Discussion

Counsel’s motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, in that Counsel provided the motion to be relieved as counsel, a declaration in support, a proposed order granting Counsel’s motion; and proof of service.

            The declaration states that there is a conflict of interest in continuing to represent Plaintiff in this case due to a breakdown in communication, trust, and irreconcilable interests. (Zaimi Decl., ¶ 2.)

            The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met. The court grants the requested withdrawal effective upon the filing of proof of service showing service of the signed order to Plaintiff.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Mayra Munoz’s Counsel Alexander Zaimi’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service showing service of the signed order.