Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC716112, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC716112    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Kevin J. Leichter and The Leichter Firm

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendants

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

DISCUSSION

Kevin J. Leichter and The Leichter Firm (“Defendants’ Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel for defendants Shahram Elyaszadeh and E&E Mortgage Bankers Corporation (“Defendants”).

“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 denies Defendants’ Counsel’s motion without prejudice because Defendants’ Counsel have not submitted evidence to the court establishing that Defendants were (1) served with the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the motion, or (2) given notice of the continued hearing date on this motion.

First, Defendants’ Counsel state in their declaration that (1) Defendants were personally served with copies of the moving papers, and (2) a copy of the proof of service would be filed at least five days before the hearing.  (MC-052, ¶ 3, subd. (a)(1).)  However, Defendants’ Counsel have not submitted a proof of service establishing that Defendants were personally served with all papers filed in connection with this motion.  Although there are proofs of service attached to each form, they establish only that counsel for plaintiff Manoucher Sarbaz was electronically served with the moving papers.  Second, the hearing on this motion was continued by the court on February 28, 2023.  However, Defendants’ Counsel have not submitted a proof of service or other evidence showing that Defendants received notice of the new hearing date.

The court therefore denies Kevin J. Leichter and The Leichter Firm’s motion to be relieved as counsel for defendants Shahram Elyaszadeh and E&E Mortgage Bankers Corporation without prejudice to filing a new motion to be relieved as counsel that cures these defects.

The court orders Kevin J. Leichter and The Leichter Firm to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 17, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court