Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STLC07829, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 18STLC07829    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Shimon B. Feldman

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant EOL Builders

MOVING PARTY:                Shimon B. Feldman

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Complainant EOL Builders

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers were filed. 

DISCUSSION

Shimon B. Feldman (“EOL Builders’ Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant and cross-complainant EOL Builders.

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. 2) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)      

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (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)).

The court finds that EOL Builders’ Counsel has served EOL Builders by mail and email and has submitted declarations establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, have been satisfied.  The court also finds that EOL Builders’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the motions to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).   

EOL Builders’ Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel for EOL Builders, as defendant and cross-complainant, are therefore granted. 

EOL Builders’ Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for defendant and cross-complainant EOL Builders effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” on the client (defendant and cross-complainant EOL Builders).  

The court orders EOL Builders’ Counsel to give notice of this ruling and the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” to EOL Builders and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.   

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 16, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court