Stacy Engman v.  BNY Mellon, National Association, As Administrator of The Estate Of Matthew T. Mellon II, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY: Ronald P. Slates (Counsel for Plaintiff Stacy Engman)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Stacy Engman brings this action against Defendant BNY Mellon, N.A. (“BNY”), as Administrator CTA (“Administrator”) for the Estate of Matthew T. Mellon, II (the “Estate”). Plaintiff alleges she had a romantic relationship with the deceased Matthew T. Mellon, II, an heir of the Mellon family. Plaintiff alleges Mellon promised an investment in her fashion design business during his life. Following Mellon’s death, Plaintiff filed a creditor’s claim in the probate proceeding to recover said investment.  However, BNY rejected the claim as untimely under the Probate Code. The operative TAC now asserts a single cause of action for Civil Action On Probate Claim against BNY as Administrator.

Ronald P. Slates, counsel for Plaintiff Stacy Engman, now moves to be relieved as counsel.  The motion is unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Legal Standard

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284, subdivision¿(2), California Rules of Court 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 CCP section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP 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, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-053)).¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿

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.)

Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client by mail and overnight delivery on January 25, 2023. (See Proof of Service.)  Counsel confirmed the client’s mailing address by telephone and email.  (Form MC-052 ¶ 3.)

Moving counsel provides that “[t]here has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship” and that “client has failed and refused to sign and return” a substitution of attorney form. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) 

There is no opposition to this motion. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by movant.  Trial in this matter is not set until September 18, 2023, leaving Plaintiff sufficient time to retain new counsel, if desired.

Accordingly, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   March 3, 2023 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court