Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV31520, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31520    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: 29

Valenzuela v. Stadco LA
22STCV31520
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel Ilia Borisov of Martinian Lawyers, Inc.

Tentative

The Court will call this matter.

Background

On September 26, 2022, Dehnys Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Stadco LA, LLC., Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC, and Does 1 to 10 for premises liability arising out of an incident on August 20, 2022, in which Plaintiff was allegedly attacked by other attendees of an event at Sofi Stadium.

On April 28, 2023, Stadco LA, LLC and Hollywood Park Management Company, LLC filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney.

On August 21, 2024 Ilia Borisov of Martinian Lawyers, Inc. (“Counsel”) (Plaintiff’s new counsel) filed this motion to be relieved as counsel.

Plaintiff filed an objection to the application on September 4, 2024.  No proof of service was attached, and it is unclear whether Plaintiff served the objection on Counsel.

Trial is scheduled for August 18, 2025.

Legal Standard

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation. (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)   

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)).   

Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) 

Discussion

Counsel has filed the required documents.  In the supporting declaration, Counsel states that the filing of this motion “has become necessary” because Plaintiff “by other conduct, renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.”

In the Objection, Plaintiff states that Counsel has “refused to litigate this case in a reasonable manner,” has not communicated with Plaintiff about critical dates, “refuses to propound discovery,” and “just wants to send a demand letter without doing any work.” 

The Court will call this matter and inquire, among other things, about whether Counsel was served with the Objection; whether the attorney-client relationship is damaged beyond repair; and whether there are conflicts between the attorney and client that make it unreasonable for the attorney to continue the representation.

Conclusion

The Court will call this matter.