Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV04624, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04624    Hearing Date: October 2, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Ogochukwu Victor Onwaeze

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

Ogochukwu Victor Onwaeze (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Peter Tamarat (“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 finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel has served Plaintiff with (1) the moving papers by mail at Plaintiff’s last known address, which Plaintiff’s Counsel confirmed within the past 30 days is current, and (2) the notice of continuance, which states that the hearing on this motion was continued from September 14, 2023 to October 2, 2023, by mail and email.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(a); Aug. 28, 2023 Notice of Continuance, Proof of Service.)  The court further finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why counsel should be relieved and why counsel has brough 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 Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion.

The court, however, notes that the proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” is incomplete, because it does not state Plaintiff’s current or last known telephone number in section 6.  The court will require Plaintiff’s Counsel to provide Plaintiff’s current or last known telephone number at the hearing on this motion.

Ogochukwu Victor Onwaeze will be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Peter Tamarat 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 Ogochukwu Victor Onwaeze to give notice of this ruling and the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to plaintiff Peter Tamarat and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 2, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court