Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV20349, Date: 2025-05-15 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: 22STCV20349    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Steven H. Haney        

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Jacquelyn Martin

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Damonee Norris

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

DISCUSSION

Steven H. Haney (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for (1) plaintiff Jacquelyn Martin (“Martin”), and (2) plaintiff Damonee Norris (“Norris”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  In the interest of efficiency, the court discusses Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s two motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs 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 finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel (1) has served Plaintiffs with (i) the moving papers filed in connection with each motion by mail at their last known addresses, which Plaintiff’s Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days are current by mail, return receipt requested, and (ii) the notice of continuance of the hearings on the pending motions to be relieved as Plaintiffs’ counsel from March 12, 2025 to May 15, 2025, by mail, and (2) has served counsel for defendant Los Angeles Unified School District with (i) the moving papers filed in connection with each motion, and (ii) the notice of continuance of the hearings on the pending motions.  (MC-052 as to plaintiff Martin, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(a); Feb. 18, 2025, Proof of Service as to motion to be relieved as counsel for Martin, p. 2; MC-052 as to plaintiff Norris, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(a); Feb. 20, 2025 Proof of Service as to motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Norris; Feb. 25, 2025 Notice of Continuance, pp. 1:26-28 [notice of continuance], 3 [proof of service],)  The court also finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the motions should be granted and why Plaintiffs’ Counsel brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).  (MC-052 as to plaintiff Martin, ¶ 2; MC-052 as to plaintiff Norris, ¶ 2.)

            The court therefore grants Steven H. Haney’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Jacquelyn Martin, and (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Damonee Norris.

            The court, however, notes that the proposed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” filed by Steven H. Haney as to each plaintiff, are incomplete since they do not state the current or last known addresses and telephone numbers of Plaintiffs as required in section 6.  The court will require counsel to provide this information for both plaintiff Jacquelyn Martin and plaintiff Damonee Norris at the hearing on these motions.

            Steven H. Haney will be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs Jacquelyn Martin and Damonee Norris effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” on the clients. 

            The court orders Steven H. Haney to give notice of this ruling and the signed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to plaintiffs Jacquelyn Martin and Damonee Norris and to all other parties who have appeared in the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 15, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court