Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV08365, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08365    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Matthew M. Wrenshall and RMO LLP         

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Keiko Hasegawa

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Philip Sentoso

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

DISCUSSION

Matthew M. Wrenshall and RMO LLP (“Defendants’ Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for (1) defendant Keiko Hasegawa, and (2) defendant Philip Sentoso (“Defendants”).  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses the two pending motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants 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 has served Defendants with the moving papers by mail at their last known mailing addresses, which Defendants’ Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days are current.  (MC-052 Forms, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(d).)  The court also finds that Defendants’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why counsel should be relieved and why counsel has brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).  (MC-052 Forms, ¶¶ 2, 7.)

The court therefore grants Defendants’ Counsel’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Keiko Hasegawa, and (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Philip Sentoso.

Matthew M. Wrenshall and RMO LLP will be relieved as counsel for defendants Keiko Hasegawa and Philip Sentoso effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to each defendant, on the clients. 

The court orders Matthew M. Wrenshall and RMO LLP to give notice of this ruling and the signed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” on defendants Keiko Hasegawa and Philip Sentoso, and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 18, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court