Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV09679, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09679    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel Irving Pedroza.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Rony Issac Montes (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Christopher Tsunglung Ho and Does 1 to 50 for Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence stemming from an auto accident occurring May 1, 2021.

Defendant Christoper Tsunglung Ho filed his answer on October 19, 2023.

On February 16, 2024, Irving Pedroza (“Counsel”) filed this motion to be relieved as counsel.

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 Notice, Declaration, and Order to be Relieved as Counsel. Counsel states his client has been unresponsive to communications, and as such, continued employment will likely result in a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. (Decl., No. 2.)

Counsel has been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s address, but mailed the motion to the client’s last known address with return receipt requested and emailed the documents to Plaintiff.

The Court finds that counsel has satisfied all substantive and procedural requirements for a motion to be relieved and grants the motion, subject to counsel submitting a revised proposed order that includes the date for the OSC re dismissal of April 28, 2025.

Conclusion

The Court grants counsel’s motion to be relieved.

The order is effective upon counsel submitting a revised proposed order to the Court and counsel filing a proof of service with the Court showing service of the signed order on the client.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.