Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03654, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03654    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03654

CASE NAME: Mikki Beermann v. Jessica Morgan Raymond, et al.

ATTORNEY NAME: Lilian Sedaghat, Esq., counsel of record for Plaintiff, Mikki Beermann

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Rulings: (1) ARGUE. Moving papers indicate counsel has been unable to confirm the client’s proper address but the efforts to do so are incomplete

I. Background

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff, Mikki Beermann (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Jessica Morgan Raymond, John J. Raymond, Sandra J. Raymond, and DOES 1 through 25. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.

On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney, Lilian Sedaghat, Esq. (“Sedaghat”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 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, Plaintiff’s attorney, Sedaghat, moves the court to relieve her as attorney of record for Plaintiff. Sedaghat properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. Sedaghat’s declaration indicates that the Plaintiff was served by mail at the client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with the declaration. However, Sedaghat attests that Plaintiff’s last known address has not been confirmed within the past thirty (30) days despite Sedaghat unsuccessfully attempting to call the client’s last telephone number. In this day and age, most clients have email addresses and text numbers, and the moving papers do not indicate whether any efforts have been made to contact the client by email, text, or even a drive-by of the client’s residence. The Court needs a further showing before it can grant a motion to leav the client un-represented.

In the declaration, Sedaghat states that the reason for her motion is that “[t]here has been an irretrievable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. It is unclear whether this means counsel has lost contact with the client and, if so, for how long, or whether there is a substantive breakdown in the relationship. Oral argument needs to clarify this point as well.