Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC678951, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC678951    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Kevin Shenkman, Shenkman & Hughes PC

RESPONDING PARTY:       n/a

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed. 

DISCUSSION

Kevin Shenkman and Shenkman & Hughes PC (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs Debra Louise Cembrano, Lynnette Merritt, Cristina Romero, and Shawn Robison (“Plaintiffs”).

“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 Plaintiffs’ Counsel has served Plaintiffs by mail at their respective addresses, which Plaintiffs’ Counsel has been unable to confirm as current but has made reasonable efforts to do so.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1)(B).)  The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has submitted declarations establishing that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has substantially complied with the service requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.  The court also finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel 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).   

The court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.

Kevin Shenkman and Shenkman & Hughes PC will be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs Debra Louise Cembrano, Lynnette Merritt, Cristina Romero, and Shawn Robison, 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 clients.

The court orders Plaintiffs’ Counsel to give notice of this ruling and the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel -- Civil” to plaintiffs Debra Louise Cembrano, Lynnette Merritt, Cristina Romero, and Shawn Robison, and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.   

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 25, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court