Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV08934, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08934    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Alexander M. Larian 

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

Alexander M. Larian (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Gregory Fisher (“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 notes the following defects with Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion.

First, on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, Plaintiff’s Counsel stated that counsel “personally served the client with copies of the motion papers filed with this declaration[,]” and that “[a] copy of the proof of service will be filed with the court at least 5 days before the hearing.”  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (a)(1).)  However, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file a proof of personal service of the motion on Plaintiff (1) as stated in the declaration, and (2) as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300.  (Ibid.; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1300, subd. (c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing”].)

Thus, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not shown that Plaintiff was personally served with the pending motion.

Second, the court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a “Proof of Service by First-Class Mail – Civil” on January 16, 2025, stating that the notice of motion and motion, supporting declaration, and proposed order were served on Plaintiff, plaintiff Tracy Hill, and counsel for the defendants.  (Jan. 16, 2025 POS-030.)  However, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not submit a declaration stating either that (1) the address of service is the current residence or business address of Plaintiff, which Plaintiff’s Counsel confirmed as current within 30 days before the filing of the motion, or (2) the address of service is the last known residence or business address of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1); MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (b) [leaving blank the declaration statements that the address for service by mail is the current or last known address].)

Thus, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not shown that Plaintiff was served with this motion by mail at Plaintiff’s current or last known address as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

Because Plaintiff’s Counsel has not (1) shown that Plaintiff was personally served with the pending motion as stated in the supporting declaration, or (2) complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 to support service of this motion by mail, the court denies Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s filing and properly serving a new motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.

ORDER

            The court denies, without prejudice, Alexander M. Larian’s motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Gregory Fisher.

            The court orders Alexander M. Larian to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 14, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court