Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV22711, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22711    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Zulu Ali, Esq. and Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates, LLP         

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Oscar Favela

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant CP Electric, LLC

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

DISCUSSION

Zulu Ali, Esq. and Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates, LLP (“Defendants’ Counsel”) separately move to be relieved as counsel for defendants Oscar Favela (“Favela”) and CP Electric, LLC (“CP Electric”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses Defendants’ Counsel’s two motions 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 denies Defendants’ Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants because Defendants’ Counsel did not (1) provide Defendants with sufficient notice of these motions, and (2) comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

First, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel did not provide Defendants with sufficient notice of these motions.

“[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 right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

The proofs of service attached to the pending motions establish that Defendants’ Counsel served Defendants with these motions by mail on June 4, 2024.  (Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel for Favela, p. 4 [proof of service on Favela]; Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel for CP Electric, p. 4 [proof of service on CP Electric].)  For a hearing date of June 28, 2024, Defendants’ Counsel was required to serve Defendants with these motions by at least May 31, 2024 (16 court days + 5 calendar days for service by mail).  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1013, subd. (a).)  

Thus, Defendants’ Counsel, in serving Defendants with these motions on June 4, 2024, did not provide Defendants with sufficient notice of the hearings on the pending motions to be relieved as their counsel of record in this action.  The court therefore denies Defendants’ Counsel’s motions due to insufficient notice.

Second, even if Defendants’ Counsel had given Defendants sufficient notice of the hearings on these motions, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. 

Although Defendants’ Counsel filed two “Notice[s] of Motion[s] and Motion[s] to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” directed to Defendants, Defendants’ Counsel did not file, as to both Defendants, (1) a declaration made on the mandatory “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel” form (Judicial Council form MC-052), or (2) a proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” made on Judicial Council form MC-053.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subds. (c), (e).)  Further, because Defendants’ Counsel did not file declarations on the mandatory Judicial Council form, Defendants’ Counsel did not submit evidence establishing that service on Defendants was made by mail (1) at Defendants’ current residence or business address, or (2) at the last known residence or business address of Defendants, and that Defendants’ Counsel was unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motions.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1).)

Thus, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

ORDER

The court denies Zulu Ali, Esq. and Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates, LLP’s         (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Oscar Favela, and (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant CP Electric, LLC, without prejudice to Zulu Ali, Esq. and Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates, LLP’s filing new motions that are served on defendants Oscar Favela and CP Electric, LLC within the time required by the Code of Civil Procedure and comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

            The court orders Zulu Ali, Esq. and Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates, LLP to give notice of this ruling to defendants Oscar Favela and CP Electric, LLC, and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  June 28, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court