Yvonne Lan v. Elie George Samaha, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

MOVING PARTY: Jason A. Feazell and Shioda Langley & Chang, LLP

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Yvonne Lan brings this action against Defendant real estate brokers or agents who represented her in the sale of her property. Plaintiff alleges Defendants convinced Plaintiff to make various improvements to the property, but that Defendants failed to exercise care in making the improvements. This forced Plaintiff to expend additional money to remedy defects left by Defendants’ work. 

Jason A. Feazell and Shioda Langley & Chang, LLP, now move to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Lan.  No opposition was filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered 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 February 29, 2024.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client by mail and email at the client’s last known addresses. (See MC-052, ¶ 3; 02/29/2024 Proof of Service.)

Counsel attests that the client “has been non-responsive to all of attorneys' attempted communications by all available means for over the past three months,” which makes it impossible for Counsel to “reasonably prepare for trial, participate in discovery, and adequately represent the client.” (MC-052 ¶¶ 2, 7.)

There is no opposition to the motion, and there is no evidence Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced if Counsel is relieved at this time. Plaintiff has sufficient time to retain a new attorney, or may proceed in pro per, if she intends to continue prosecuting this action.

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 2, 2024 ___________________________________