SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTIES: Stephen M. Garcia and Garcia & Artigliere 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: None 

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 

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

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an elder abuse action. On October 24, 2023, plaintiff Josalyn Pitcher (Plaintiff), by and through her attorney in fact, Pamela Pitcher, filed this action against defendants Family Care CLHF, Inc., Gergen Dumanyan, Tsoghik Karapetyan, and Does 1 through 250, alleging causes of action for dependent abuse (pursuant to the Elder Adult and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 15600, et seq.), and negligence. 

On February 13, 2024, Stephen M. Garcia and Garcia & Artigliere, counsel for Plaintiff, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. The motion is unopposed. 

 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.) 

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) 

 

DISCUSSION 

Stephen M. Garcia and Garcia & Artigliere, counsel for Plaintiff (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel on the grounds that irreconcilable differences have arisen, and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit this attorney-client relationship from continuing. (Baladejo Decl., ¶ 7.) The court finds this to be sufficient grounds for withdrawal. 

Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the client’s conduct that “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco¿(1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) 

However, Counsel represented in paragraph 3, subdivision (a)(1), of Ms. Baladejo’s declaration that Counsel had personally served Plaintiff with copies of the motion papers filed with the declaration, and that Counsel would file a copy of the proof of service at least five days before the hearing on this motion. (Baladejo Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (a)(1).) The Court notes that Counsel has not filed a proof of personal service within five days before the hearing on this motion. Therefore, the motion is incomplete. 

The court further notes some inconsistencies between the time scheduled for the hearing on this motion in the notice and the actual time for which it was scheduled. The notice of motion indicates that the time of the hearing is 9:00 a.m. (Notice, ¶ 2, subd. (a).) The correct time for the hearing is 8:30 a.m. This appears to have been due to the Court Reservation System having originally designated the location for the hearing on this motion as Department A of the Burbank Courthouse. (Notice, p. 3.) Nevertheless, the correct time for the hearing is essential to proper notice. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a).) 

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice.