Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV28647, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28647    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 29

Surphman v. Selma Vine Hollywood LLC
23STCV28647
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel Jennifer Burkes, Esq. and Nareh S. Terzian, Esq.

Tentative

The motion is granted

Background

On November 22, 2023, Tony Surphman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Selma Vine Hollywood LLC, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Does 1 through 50 for (1) negligence, (2) statutory liability, dog bite statute, (3) strict liability, and (4) premises liability, arising out of an incident in which Plaintiff alleges he was attacked by a bulldog at 1540 Vine Street in Los Angeles on August 29, 2023. (Complaint, ¶ 9 .)

On December 29, 2023, Selma Vine Hollywood, LLC filed an answer and cross-complaint against Ashley Leon. On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Ashley Leon as Doe 1, later changed to Jane Doe 1 on February 5, 2024.

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Robert Altamirano as Doe 1. Robert Altamirano was added as Roe 1 to Selma Vine Hollywood, LLC’s cross-complaint on May 13, 2024.

On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Camden Development, Inc. as Doe 2. Camden Development, Inc. filed an answer on August 8, 2024.

On August 28, 2024, Jennifer Burkes, Esq. and Nareh S. Terzian, Esq. (“Counsel”) filed this motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. 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, subd. (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 contends there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel states that Plaintiff’s address has been confirmed within the past 30 days by telephone and conversation. Proof of service shows proper and timely service on Plaintiff by mail as well as on Defendants Selma Vine Hollywood, LLC, Camden Development, Inc., Ashley Leon, and Robert Altamirano. All upcoming hearings and trial dates have been included in the declaration and proposed order.

All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied.  The Court finds Counsel has shown good cause to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. The order is effective upon filing with the Court a proof of service showing service of the signed order (not just the minute order) on the clients.

Moving Counsel to give notice.