Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV08365, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08365    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Nicholas G. Everett, Matthew J. Pero, and Lagerlof, LLP    

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff

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

DISCUSSION

Nicholas G. Everett, Matthew J. Pero, and Lagerlof, LLP (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso (“Plaintiff”) in this action.  Plaintiff has opposed Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion.

“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 Plaintiff’s Counsel has not submitted all of the documents required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  Specifically, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not prepare and lodge with the court a proposed order relieving counsel on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-053) as required.[1]  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (e) [the proposed order “must be lodged with the court with the moving papers”].)

            Thus, the court finds that it is appropriate, and therefore exercises its discretion, to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel in order to give Plaintiff’s Counsel an opportunity to lodge the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil with the court.

ORDER

            The court orders that the hearing on Nicholas G. Everett, Matthew J. Pero, and Lagerlof, LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff is continued to March 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders (1) Nicholas G. Everett, Matthew J. Pero, and Lagerlof, LLP to lodge (by e-filing in eCourt)) with the court a proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (MC-053) no later than February 28, 2025, and (2) to give notice of this ruling to plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso and all other parties who have appeared in this action, and to file a proof of service of the notice of ruling, no later than February 28, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 24, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court