Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV31759, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31759 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV31759 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
April
10, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: motion to be relieved as counsel for
plaintiff |
||
MOVING PARTY: Carney R. Shegerian
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Security Industry Specialist,
Inc.
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff
The court
considered the moving and non-opposition papers filed in connection with this
motion. No reply papers were filed.
DISCUSSION
Carney R. Shegerian (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as
counsel for plaintiff Tiyon Christopher Paul Cooper (“Plaintiff”) in this
action. Defendant Security Industry
Specialist, Inc. filed, on March 28, 2024, a notice of non-opposition with the
court, stating that it does not oppose Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be
relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.
“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 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
by email. (MC-052, ¶ 3, subds.
(a)(2), (b)(1)(b); Feb. 21, 2024 Proof of Service, pp. 2:6-10, 3:3-5.) 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.
Carney R.
Shegerian will be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Tiyon Christopher
Paul Cooper 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 Carney R. Shegerian to give notice of this ruling and the signed “Order Granting
Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to plaintiff Tiyon
Christopher Paul Cooper and to all other parties who have appeared in this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court