Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV15057, Date: 2023-05-23 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: 19STCV15057    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Ryan H. Crosner and Paul M. Smith of Ogletree Deakins          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant CBC Restaurant Corp.

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Juliana Zhu

(3)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Chris Gholar

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

DISCUSSION

Ryan H. Crosner and Paul M. Smith of Ogletree Deakins (“Defendants’ Counsel”) separately move to be relieved as counsel for (1) defendant CBC Restaurant Corp., (2) defendant Juliana Zhu, and (3) defendant Chris Gholar.  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses the three motions to be relieved as counsel together.

“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 Defendants’ Counsel have served Defendants with the moving papers by mail at the clients’ last known addresses, which Defendants’ Counsel have confirmed within the past 30 days are current.  The court further finds that Defendants’ Counsel have shown sufficient reasons why the three motions to be relieved as counsel should be granted, and why counsel have brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1). 

The court therefore grants Defendants’ Counsel’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant CBC Restaurant Corp., (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Juliana Zhu, and (3) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Chris Gholar.

The court, however, notes that the proposed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” which Defendants’ Counsel lodged with the court on April 28, 2023, are incomplete as to all three defendants because Defendants’ Counsel did not provide Defendants’ current or last known telephone numbers in section 6.  The court will require Defendants’ Counsel to provide Defendants’ current or last known telephone numbers at the hearing on these motions.

Ryan H. Crosner and Paul M. Smith of Ogletree Deakins will be relieved as counsel for defendants CBC Restaurant Corp., Juliana Zhu, and Chris Gholar effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” as to each defendant, on the clients.

The court orders Ryan H. Crosner and Paul M. Smith of Ogletree Deakins to give notice of this ruling and the “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” to defendants CBC Restaurant Corp., Juliana Zhu, and Chris Gholar, and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 23, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court