Sebastian Oleske, et al. v. Ofilio Arturo Gutierrez, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY: Jeffrey A. Dracup, Esq., and Dracup & Patterson, Inc. (counsel for Defendant Manchester Legal Group, LLC)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs Sebastian Oleske and Jacqueline Sanchez bring this action for wage and hour violations against their former employers. 

Attorney Jeffrey A. Dracup and the law firm Dracup & Patterson, Inc., now move to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Manchester Legal Group. No opposition was filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Manchester Legal Group, LLC, is GRANTED.  

An OSC re: Striking of Answer of said Defendant is set for 03/11/24 at 8:30 a.m.   If Defendant does not have a new attorney of record representing it in this case by that date, this Court may strike its Answer, and enter a default accordingly.

Moving parties to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

A. 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 undue 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.)

B. Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 on January 08, 2024.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client by mail, and confirmed the client’s mailing address by conversation. (See MC-052, ¶ 3; 01/08/2024 Proof of Service.)

Counsel cites “incompatibility with client” as the reason for withdrawal. (MC-052, ¶ 2.)

There is no opposition to the motion. Here, there is no evidence the Defendant would be unduly prejudiced by the granting of this motion, as the pending trial date is still two months away.  Defendant has sufficient time to retain a new attorney and prepare for the upcoming trial. 

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Manchester Legal Group, LLC, is GRANTED.  

An OSC re: Striking of Answer of said Defendant is set for 03/11/24 at 8:30 a.m.   If Defendant does not have a new attorney of record representing it in this case by that date, this Court may strike its Answer, and enter a default accordingly.

Moving parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 2, 2024 ___________________________________