The Broad v. Hope Street Restaurants, LLC

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT HOPE STREET RESTAURANTS, LLC

 

MOVING PARTY: Alberto Munoz (counsel for Defendant Hope Street Restaurants, LLC)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff The Broad, as owner of the property at 222 Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, brings this action for unlawful detainer against Defendant Hope Street Restaurants, LLC. Alberto Munoz, counsel for Defendant, now moves to be relieved as counsel. No opposition was filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED on the condition that Counsel submit a new Order (MC-053) which indicates that the next hearing will be an OSC re: Striking of Answer on 10/10/24 at 8:30 a.m.  IF DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS ANSWER MAY BE STRICKEN.

Additionally, it is the intention of this Court to set a Final Status Conference on the same date at 9:30 a.m.  The jury trial date will be set on 10/16/24 at 9:30 a.m.  The parties are ordered to comply with the Trial Preparation Order, which can be obtained at the LASC web site (www.lacourt.org) in “Courtroom Information” for Department 49 (Stanley Mosk).

The CMC is advanced and vacated as unnecessary given the nature of this case, which is a summary proceeding, entitled to preference.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this Ruling, as well as Order (MC-053) on all interested parties.

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 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.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client by mail and email on August 19, 2024. (See Proof of Service.)  Counsel confirmed that the addresses are current within the last 30-days through telephone, by conversation, and because the mailing address is the same as that which is the subject of the underlying unlawful detainer action.  (Forms MC-052 ¶ 3(b).)

In support of withdrawal, Counsel attests there exists “a complete breakdown of the Attorney-Client relationship resulting in an irreparable breach.” (Form MC-052, ¶ 2.)

There is no opposition to the motion. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to Defendant if counsel is relieved at this time.  Hence, the motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 13, 2024 ___________________________________