Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01380, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01380    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 9, 2024

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   22TRCV01380

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Dyniesha Curtis; Corey Lee v. Kai T. Tsukiyama, et al.

ATTORNEY NAME:             Attorney for Plaintiffs, Corey Lee and Dyniesha, Manuel E Gonzalez

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set. 

¿¿¿ 

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

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED, but without prejudice to it being re-filed with the proper supporting documentation

I.                Background  

On December 2, 2022, Plaintiffs, Cory Lee and Dyniesha Curtis (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Kai T. Tsukiyama, Junko T. Tsukiyama, Trustee of The Mirai Trust, Mirai Trust, Arnold L. Graff, Wright, Finlay, & Zak, LLP, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Use and Enjoyment; (2) Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; (3) Intentional Violation of Statutory Duty; (4) Retaliation/Constructive Eviction; (5) Negligent Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; (6) Intentional Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;(7) Nuisance (Negligent); (8) Nuisance (Intentional); (9) Negligence; and (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs, Corey Lee and Dyniesha Curtis’s attorney, Manuel E. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  

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, counsel for Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 3.1362 by failing to include the MC-052 form. As such, this motion is DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order 

For the foregoing reasons, Manuel E. Gonzalez’s, Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is DENIED, without prejudice to it being re-filed with the proper supporting documentation.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.