Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV11124, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11124    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Dennis L. Kennelly

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

Dennis L. Kennelly (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Luz Reynozo (“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)). 

This motion, filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel on October 28, 2022, came before the court for hearing on November 30, 2022.  The court found that Plaintiff’s Counsel did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 because Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file (1) the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, made on Civil form MC-052, or (2) the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, made on Civil form MC-053.  The court continued the hearing on this motion to January 9, 2023, and ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to file and serve the declaration and proposed order on the mandatory judicial council forms no later than December 12, 2022.  (Nov. 30, 2022 Order, pp. 2:26-3:4.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file with the court, or present evidence that he served Plaintiff with, the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, made on Civil form MC-052, or the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, made on Civil form MC-053, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 and the court’s November 30, 2022 order.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subds. (c), (e).)

Because Plaintiff’s Counsel has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 or the court’s November 30, 2022 order, the court denies Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice to Plaintiff’s Counsel filing a new motion that complies with rule 3.1362.

The court orders Dennis L. Kennelly to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 9, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court