Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV22927, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22927    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 December 6, 2022¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  21STCV22927 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Ambartsumyan v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, et al             .¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        August 22, 2023

¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel  

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED¿ 

I.                    Background¿¿ 

This action arises out of a wrongful death claim between Plaintiffs Gayane Ambartsumyan, Nicholas Harutyan Terpanjian, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Gayane Ambartsumyan, Jonathan Christian Terpanjian, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Gayane Ambartsymyan, Michael Andrew Terpanjian, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Gayane Ambartsumyan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Regents of the University of California, COR Healthcare Medical Associates, Pinky R. Thakkar, PAC, David Z. Presser, M.D., Ankush Chhabra, M.D., Eric Castleman, M.D., Hyunah L POA M.D., and Does 1 through 30, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”).

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Philip Michels, Esq.; Jin N. Lew, Esq.; Martin P. Weniz, Esq.; Law Offices of Michels & Lew (collectively “Michels & Lew”), filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff (“Motion”).¿ No opposition was filed.¿ 

¿ 

Trial is set for August 22, 2023. 

¿ 

II.                 Legal Standard & Discussion¿¿ 

¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure § 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 284; CRC 3.1362.)¿ The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably.¿ (See Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)¿ 

¿ 

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client – Civil (MC-051); Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” reasons the motion was brought (MC-052); and a Proposed Order (MC-053).¿ (Ibid.)¿ The forms must be filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case.¿ (Ibid.)¿ 

¿ 

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Michels & Lew move the Court to relieve them as attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Michels & Lew properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362.¿ On November 8, 2022, all forms for the pending motion were served on Plaintiff and Defendants by mail.¿ On November 8, 2022, proof of service for said documents was filed with the Court.¿ 

In their declaration they state that, “[f]or reasons which cannot be disclosed and must remain confidential as required by the attorney-client privilege, the Law Offices of Michels & Lew can no longer represent Plaintiffs. Public disclosure of this information could prejudice the plaintiffs and hamper new counsel. If the Court desires, the details can be discussed with the Court, in camera, without opposing counsel.”

Since Plaintiffs’ counsel has complied with all procedural requirements in filing a motion to be relieved as counsel, because counsel successfully applied to the Court to postpone pending hearings to give plaintiffs additional time to self-represent or to locate new counsel, and because the withdrawal would not cause an injustice or undue delay in proceedings, the Court finds that withdrawal of the Law Offices of Michels & Lew as attorneys of record for Plaintiffs can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ interests.¿ 

¿ 

III.              Conclusion & Order¿ 

¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, the Law Offices of Michels & Lew’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED and the Order will be signed at the hearing. “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on Plaintiff and Defendant has been filed with the court.” (Id.)¿ 

¿ 

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.¿¿