Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV32166, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32166    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                William N. Elder, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

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

DISCUSSION

William N. Elder, Jr. (“Defendant’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant 101 Auto Finance, LLC, dba Concord Funding (“Defendant”).

“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 Defendant’s Counsel has served Defendant by mail at its last known address, confirmed to be current by a search of the California Secretary of State website.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(d).)  The court further finds that Defendant’s Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted, and why counsel has brought the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).  (MC-052, ¶ 2.)

The court therefore grants Defendant’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant.

The court, however, notes that the proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” (Judicial Council form MC-053), which Defendant’s Counsel lodged with the court on September 16, 2022, is incomplete because it does not state the current or last known telephone number of the client in section 6.  The court will require Defendant’s Counsel to provide Defendant’s current or last known telephone number to the court at the hearing on this motion.

William N. Elder, Jr., will be relieved as counsel of record for defendant 101 Auto Finance, LLC, dba Concord Funding, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” on the client.

The court orders applicant William N. Elder, Jr., to give notice of this ruling and the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” to defendant 101 Auto Finance, LLC, dba Concord Funding, and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 21, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court