Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV08922, Date: 2024-03-27 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: 20STCV08922    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Andrew J. Knez

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant

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

DISCUSSION

Andrew J. Knez (“Defendant’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for defendant James Jones (“Defendant”).

“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 Defendant’s Counsel has not shown that he served Defendant with the papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court acknowledges that Defendant’s Counsel has asserted, on the mandatory “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel — Civil” form, that Defendant’s Counsel served Defendant with copies of the motion papers by mail at Defendant’s last known address, which Defendant’s Counsel confirmed within the past 30 days is current.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(b).)  However, Defendant’s Counsel has also filed two proofs of service of the moving papers with the court, both of which are defective.

The first proof of service, submitted to establish service by mail, appears to list the correct address for Defendant (22431 Antonio Parkway, Suite B160, #1004, Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688), but states that service was made on an individual named “Leslie Bushnell,” not Defendant.  (Feb. 23, 2024 Proof of Service, p. 2:11-13, 2:17-19.)  The second proof of service, submitted to establish service by email, again states that service was made on “Leslie Bushnell,” not Defendant, and appears to list an email address associated with Leslie Bushnell.  (Feb. 23, 2024 Proof of Service, p. 2:11-15 [listing Leslie Bushnell as defendant and listing email address of service to be “lbushnelljwjtrustee@gmail.com”].)

Thus, the court finds that the proofs of service filed by Defendant’s Counsel are defective and therefore do not establish that Defendant’s Counsel served Defendant with the pending motion to be relieved as his counsel.

The court therefore exercises its discretion to continue the hearing on Defendant’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant in order to ensure that Defendant is served with all the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court orders that the hearing on Andrew J. Knez’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant James Jones is continued to May 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders Andrew J. Knez (1) to give notice of this ruling and the new hearing date on this motion to defendant James Jones and to all other parties who have appeared in this action, and (2) to file new proofs of service establishing that (i) defendant James Jones was served with the moving papers filed in connection with this motion to be relieved as counsel, and (ii) defendant James Jones and all other parties who have appeared in this action were served with a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 27, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court