Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV28320, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28320    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 29

Castillo v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
23STCV28320

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Counsel for Mickey Garrett Associates, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On November 20, 2023, Steven Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., LA Convention Center, ANSA Productions, Inc., and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on November 24, 2021.

On January 5, 2024, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) filed an answer.

On February 22, 2024, ANSA Productions, Inc. dba Automobility LA, dba LA Auto Show, and/or dba Los Angeles Auto Show (“ANSA”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against American Honda Motor Co. c/o Garrett & Associates, CI Security Specialists, Inc., and Moes 1 through 20.

On March 26, 2024, Honda filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On May 15, 2024, CI Security Specialists, Inc. filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On June 21, 2024, Mickey Garrett Associates, Inc. (erroneously sued as American Honda Motor Co. c/o Garrett Associates) (“Garrett”) filed an answer to the cross-complaint and filed its own cross-complaint against Honda, ANSA, CI Security Specialists, Inc, and Roes 1 through 50.

On July 24, 2024, ANSA and Honda filed answers to Garrett’s cross-complaint. On August 9, 2024, CI Security Specialists, Inc. filed an answer to Garrett’s cross-complaint.

On January 6, 2025, Michael Rogers, Esq., Robin Smith and Turner McDonald of Rogers Smith, APC (collectively “Counsel”) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Garrett. No opposition has been filed.

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. However, proof of service of this motion shows service on January 6, 2025. This service is untimely.

Service was made sixteen court days before the hearing.  That is the minimum time for service if a motion is personally served, but two additional days are required for electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1011.6.)  Moreover, Garrett needed to be served by mail, which adds five days rather than two days to the service period. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)   

In addition, and independently, in the declaration (Form MC-052), Item 3 is incomplete.  Where, as here, the declarant selects option 3b(1), the declarant must also check one of the boxes set forth in subsections (a) through (d).

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to be relieved as counsel.

Moving counsel to give notice.