Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV29733, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29733 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV29733 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
November
27, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel for
plaintiff |
||
MOVING PARTIES: Matthew W. Dietz and Blackstone
Law, APC
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
Matthew W. Dietz and Blackstone Law, APC (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) move
to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Nancy Kurpjuweit (“Plaintiff”) 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 Plaintiff’s Counsel has served Plaintiff (1) with
the moving papers filed in connection with this motion by mail at Plaintiff’s
last known address, which Plaintiff’s Counsel has confirmed within the past 30
days is current, and (2) with notice of the continuance of the hearing on this
motion by mail.[1] (MC-052, ¶ 3, subds. (b)(1)(c); Proofs of
Service attached to MC-051, p. 1:15-22, MC-052, p. 1:15-23, MC-052, p. 1:15-23;
Oct. 31, 2024 Notice of Continuance, p. 2 [proof of service].) The court also finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel
has shown sufficient reasons why the motion 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.)
The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved
as counsel for Plaintiff.
However, the court notes that the proposed
“Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” lodged with
the court by Plaintiff’s Counsel on October 8, 2024, is incomplete because it
does not state Plaintiff’s current or last known address and telephone number
in section six. The court will require
Plaintiff’s Counsel to provide that information at the hearing on this motion.
Matthew W. Dietz and Blackstone Law, APC will be relieved as counsel
for plaintiff Nancy Kurpjuweit effective upon the filing of the proof of
service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel – Civil” on the client.
The court orders Matthew W. Dietz
and Blackstone Law, APC to give notice of this ruling and the signed “Order
Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to for plaintiff
Nancy Kurpjuweit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1]
The court notes that, on the “Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel – Civil,” Plaintiff’s Counsel checked the box stating that
Plaintiff was personally served with the moving papers and that a proof of
service would be filed five court days before the hearing on this motion. (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (a)(1).) However, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not filed a
proof of personal service.
Notwithstanding this assertion, the court has considered (1) the proofs
of service attached to the moving papers, which state that Plaintiff was served
therewith by certified mail on October 8, 2024, and (2) the statement made by
Plaintiff’s Counsel on the declaration form that Plaintiff’s Counsel has
confirmed within the past 30 days that Plaintiff’s address is current. (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(c).)