Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: BC718562, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC718562    Hearing Date: August 30, 2024    Dept: 29

Hughey v. City of Los Angeles
BC718562
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel Raymond Ghermezian

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On August 21, 2018, Micayla Hughley, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Nicole Mines, (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), State of California (“State”), and Does 1 through 100 for negligence and premises liability.

On May 3, 2019, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed State.

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property against City, County, State, and Does 1 through 100.

On July 3, 2019, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed City.

 On October 10, 2019, County filed an answer to the FAC.

On February 10, 2021, County filed a cross-complaint against Nicole Mines and Roes 1 through 30.

On February 4, 2022, notice of settlement was filed in this matter.

This matter was dismissed on December 16, 2022.

On June 6, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal.

On June 18, 2024, Raymond Ghermezian (“Counsel”) filed this motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed.

This motion was initially scheduled for hearing on July 23.  Following the cyber attack on the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the hearing was continued to August 30.

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 3.1362(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 for Plaintiff. In the Declaration, Counsel contends there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel has served Plaintiff by mail, and confirmed Client’s address within 30 days of filing this motion by telephone.

The Court has three concerns with the motion.

First, Counsel provides inconsistent information regarding service.  The attorney declaration states that the client (presumably the guardian ad litem) was served by mail, but the proof of service states that the guardian ad litem was served by email.

Second, the Plaintiff is a minor.  If the motion is granted, Plaintiff would be without counsel and unable to represent herself (as she is a minor).  The guardian ad litem may not, without counsel, represent the Plaintiff.  An attorney must appear on behalf of the minor; a non-attorney appointed as guardian ad litem cannot act in pro per as doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law (Bus. & Professions Code § 6125; see J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965.)

Third, the moving papers do not explain what remains to be done in this matter.  The case was dismissed (without prejudice) in December 2022, and a motion to set aside the dismissal was denied. 

For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.

Conclusion

The motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving Counsel to give notice.