Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV11124, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV11124    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Dennis L. Kennelly

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           

Dennis L. Kennelly (“Counsel”) filed the pending motion to be relieved as counsel on March 7, 2023.

“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 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; MC-052, Ex. A.)  

However, the court notes that there are defects with the documents filed in support of this motion.

First, there is a defect with the “Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil.”  In field 1, the motion requires moving counsel to identify the (1) name and (2) address of the client.  (MC-051, ¶ 1.)  Counsel has identified the address of the client but has not stated the name of the client in this field.  Although Counsel has identified the client to be plaintiff Luz Reynozo in the “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” and the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil,” Counsel must identify the client in the Notice of Motion and Motion so that the client can receive proper notice. 

Second, it is not clear whether Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days that the client’s address is current.  The “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” states that, if the client has been served “by mail” at the last known address, the attorney has confirmed that the address is current by certain specified means.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (b).)  Here, Counsel has checked the box “by other means,” but did not specify the means by which counsel verified the client’s mailing address.  Instead, Counsel states that the client has “been served by email.”  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(d).) 

Third, the proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” is incomplete because counsel has not provided the information requested in fields 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

The court exercises its discretion to continue the hearing on Dennis L. Kennelly’s motion to be relieved as counsel to May 9, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders Dennis L. Kennelly to (1) file and serve a new “Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” (made on Judicial Council form MC-051) that identifies both the name and address of the client, (2) file and serve a new “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” (made on Judicial Council form MC-053), that includes all requested information, and (3) file a Proof of Service showing that Dennis L. Kennelly has properly served the client with the new “Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil,” new “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil,” and the “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil” no later than April 17, 2023.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 6, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court