Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV10823, Date: 2023-03-17 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: 21STCV10823    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Stephen Ball, Drew Evans, and Marcy Pettitt

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff

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

DISCUSSION

Stephen Ball, Drew Evans, and Marcy Pettitt (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff John Christian Lukes (“Plaintiff”).

“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 denies Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion without prejudice. 

First, although Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted the declaration of Drew N. Evans in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not serve and file a declaration made on Judicial Council form “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” (form MC-052) as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (c) [The motion “must be accompanied by a declaration on” form MC-052] [emphasis added].) 

Second, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not filed a proof of service establishing that Plaintiff was given notice of the hearing date on this motion.  On February 28, 2023, the court continued the hearing on this motion to March 17, 2023, and ordered Stephen C. Ball to give notice of the continuance.  However, there is no proof of service or other evidence showing that Plaintiff was given notice of the new hearing date on this motion. 

The court therefore denies Stephen Ball, Drew Evans, and Marcy Pettitt’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff John Christian Lukes, without prejudice to filing a new motion to be relieved as counsel that is made on all required forms and gives proper notice.

The court orders Stephen Ball, Drew Evans, and Marcy Pettitt to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 17, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court