Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV14212, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14212    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants

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

DISCUSSION

Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc. (“Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for defendants Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Jacob Reiss, and Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

“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 Counsel has not shown that Counsel served all moving papers on Defendants.

The court acknowledges that attached to the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil form (MC-051) is a proof of service.  (Mot., MC-051, p. 3.)  However, that proof of service states only that “the foregoing document described as Motion to be relieved as counsel” was served on counsel for plaintiff Maria Perez, Italy Reiss, and defendants Uzzi Reiss and Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Inc. by mail on April 23, 2025.  (Ibid.)  It does not state that (1) the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052) and the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053) were served on defendants Uzzi Reiss and Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Inc. and counsel for plaintiff Maria Perez as required, and (2) defendant Jacob Reiss was served with any of the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  (Ibid.; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

The court notes that, in Counsel’s declaration, Counsel states that “Italy Reiss, the son of Uzzi Reiss and the brother of Jacob Reiss, agreed to accept service of the motion by email.”  (Decl. MC-052, p. 3, Attachment MC-030.)  However, Counsel did not present competent evidence showing that Defendants consented to Italy Reiss’s receiving service of the moving papers on their behalf.  Counsel is required to serve the moving papers on Defendants.  Further, even if the court were to find that Counsel has shown that Defendants authorized Italy Reiss to receive service of the moving papers, Counsel (1) has only submitted a redacted version of an email giving notice that Counsel would, on an unspecified date in the future, file a motion to withdraw as Defendants’ counsel and did not submit a proof of service of all the moving papers on Italy Reiss, and (2) did not submit a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the current electronic service address as required.  (Decl. MC-052, p. 5; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(2).)

            For the reasons set forth above, the court denies Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc.’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendants Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Jacob Reiss, and Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Inc., without prejudice to Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc.’s filing a new motion to be relieved as their counsel that is accompanied by a proof of service establishing that all of the moving papers have been served on defendants Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Jacob Reiss, and Uzzi Reiss, M.D., Inc.

            The court notes that, if Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc. file a new motion to be relieved as counsel, the proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” (MC-053) lodged with the court in connection with that motion should (1) mark the box labeled “a” in section 5, and (2) include the information required in sections 3 (depending on the method of service) and 6-9.

            The court orders Barney Balonick and Balonick Law Office, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 29, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court