Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV01017, Date: 2024-10-17 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: 21STCV01017    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Roland R. Tijerina

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

Roland R. Tijerina (“Defendant’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for defendant Cali One Services, Inc. (“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)).¿¿¿ 

First, the court finds that Defendant’s Counsel has not given Defendant sufficient notice of the hearing on this motion.

“[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  “[A]ny period of notice . . . shall be extended . . . 10 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s Counsel has submitted a proof of service establishing that counsel served Defendant with the notice of motion, motion, and supporting declaration on September 16, 2024, by mail at Defendant’s Texas address.  (MC-051, pp. 3-4 [proof of service of mailing at the address 17619 Olde Oaks Estates Court, Cypress, Texas, 77433].)  However, for a hearing date of October 17, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel was required to serve Defendant by mail at its Texas address by at least September 13, 2024 (16 court days + 10 calendar days for mailing outside of the State of California).  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1013, subd. (a).)

The court therefore finds that Defendant’s Counsel did not provide Defendant with sufficient notice of this motion.

Second, Defendant’s Counsel did not file a proof of service establishing that counsel served plaintiff Samuel Betesh with this motion as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d) [“The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case”] [emphasis added]; MC-051, pp. 3-4 [proof of service of mailing only on Defendant].)

Third, Defendant’s Counsel did not lodge with the court a proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” made on Judicial Council form MC-053 as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (e) [proposed order must be prepared on Judicial Council form MC-053 “and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers”].)

            The court therefore denies Defendant’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant, without prejudice to Defendant’s Counsel’s filing a new motion to be relieved as counsel that (1) provides Defendant with sufficient notice, and (2) complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

ORDER

            The court denies, without prejudice, Roland R. Tijerina’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

            The court orders Roland R. Tijerina to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 17, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court