Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV05303, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05303    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Indira J. Cameron-Banks

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Amber Height

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Downtown Crenshaw Rising

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.  

DISCUSSION

Indira J. Cameron-Banks (“Defendants’ Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for defendant Downtown Crenshaw Rising (“Defendant”).

“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)).¿¿¿¿¿ 

            First, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel has not filed “a declaration stating facts showing that” the service address is the current address for Defendant as required because Defendants’ Counsel did not, on the supporting declaration, check the box establishing that counsel confirmed within the past 30 days that the address of service is Defendant’s current address.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1) [declaration must state facts showing that the service address is the current address; “‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved”]; MC-052 as to Downtown Crenshaw, ¶ 3, subd. (b).)  Thus, the declaration is incomplete.  Moreover, although Defendants’ counsel stated, under subdivision (d) (labeled “by other means”), “electronic service to Damien Goodmon at dg@libertyecosystem.org[,]” it is unclear whether Defendants’ Counsel (1) is asserting that the address was confirmed to be current by contacting defendant Damien Goodmon at his email address, or (2) is asserting that the moving papers were also served by electronic service, as stated in the accompanying proof of service.  (MC-052 as to Downtown Crenshaw, ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(d); POS-040, ¶¶ 4, 5 [stating service was made on defendant Goodmon as agent for all defendants “by mail and follow-up with email”].) 

Thus, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel did not submit a declaration stating facts showing that the address of service is Defendant’s current address and therefore did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1)(A).)  The court therefore denies Defendants’ Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant.

Second, to the extent that Defendants’ Counsel’s requests an order relieving them as counsel for defendants Liberty Community Land Trust (“Liberty”), and Damien Goodmon (“Goodmon”), the court denies that request. 

Defendants’ Counsel filed two separate “Declaration[s] in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” forms as to Liberty and Goodmon, each of which identified the hearing date thereon to be January 3, 2025.  (MC-052 as to Liberty, p. 1; MC-052 as to Goodmon, p. 1.)  However, Defendants’ Counsel (1) did not identify Liberty and Goodmon as clients in the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil in connection with the motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant, and did not file separate motions to be relieved as their counsel, and (2) did not identify Liberty and Goodmon as clients in the proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil.  (MC-051, ¶ 1 [identifying the client to be only Downtown Crenshaw]; MC-052 as to Liberty; MC-052 as to Goodmon; MC-053, ¶ 1 [identifying, on the proposed order, the subject motion to be the motion of Defendants’ Counsel “to be relieved as counsel of record for” Downtown Crenshaw only].)

Thus, to the extent that Defendants’ Counsel moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendants Liberty and Goodmon as well, the court finds that Defendants’ Counsel did not file all required documents (i.e., the Notice of Motion and Motion and proposed Order on Judicial Council forms MC-051 and MC-053) and therefore did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

ORDER

The court denies Indira J. Cameron-Banks’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Downtown Crenshaw Rising, without prejudice to Indira J. Cameron-Banks’s filing a new motion to be relieved as counsel that complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

            The court orders Indira J. Cameron-Banks to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 3, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court