Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV20741, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20741 Hearing Date: October 21, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
22STCV20741 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
October
21, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel for defendants |
||
MOVING PARTIES: Matthew D. Rifat and Law Offices
of Matthew D. Rifat APC
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants
The court
considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition papers were filed.
DISCUSSION
Matthew D. Rifat and Law Offices of Matthew D. Rifat APC (“Defendants’
Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for defendants SRRA, Inc., Mohammad
Amir Hossain, and Sura Shirin (“Defendants”) in this action.
“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 Defendants’ Counsel has not complied with
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 and therefore denies Defendants’
Counsel’s motion.
First, although Defendants’ Counsel filed the notice of motion and
motion directed to Defendants on Judicial Council form MC-051, Defendants’
Counsel did not (1) file and serve the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil on mandatory Judicial Council form
MC-052, or (2) lodge with the court and serve on the parties the proposed Order
Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil on Judicial
Council form MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Ct.,
rule 3.1362, subds. (c), (e).) While
Defendants’ Counsel did file and serve a declaration in support of this motion,
the California Rules of Court require the declaration made in support of a
motion to be relieved as counsel to be made on Judicial Council form
MC-052. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362,
subd. (c) [the motion “must” be accompanied by the MC-052 declaration].)
Second, while Defendants’ Counsel has filed a proof of service of this
motion on Defendants, Defendants’ Counsel did not submit a declaration stating
facts showing that counsel served Defendants at their last known addresses,
which Defendants’ Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days is current or
has been unable to do so after making reasonable efforts. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)
The court therefore denies Defendants’ Counsel’s motion to be relieved
as counsel for Defendants, without prejudice to Defendants’ Counsel’s filing a
new motion that complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.
ORDER
The court denies, without prejudice,
Matthew D. Rifat and Law Offices of Matthew D. Rifat APC’s motion to be
relieved as counsel for defendants.
The court orders Matthew D. Rifat
and Law Offices of Matthew D. Rifat APC to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court