Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00469, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00469 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: L
Counsel for Plaintiff Gonzalo Tovar
Hernandez’s (i.e., Superior Justice Law Group’s)
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED,
effective upon the filing of the proof of
service showing service of the signed order
upon the Client at the Client’s last known
address.
Background
Plaintiff Gonzalo
Tovar Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: In 1999, Plaintiff, Manuel
Ramirez
(“Manuel”), Delores Ramirez (“Delores”) and Maria Tovar (“Maria”) purchased the
property
located at 790 Elliott Ct. #A, Pomona, CA 91766 (“subject property”). In 2002,
Plaintiff
and Manuel
refinanced the subject property. In 2003, Delores died and an Affidavit of
Joint
Death was
recorded. In 2004, Plaintiff and Manuel refinanced the subject property. In
2007,
Plaintiff,
Manuel and Maria granted the subject property to Plaintiff as his sole and
separate
property. In
2008, Plaintiff granted the subject property to himself and Manuel, as tenants
in
common. In
2008, Manuel stated that upon his death he intended to give his interest in the
subject
property to his goddaughter, Defendant Myra Sanchez (“Sanchez”). In 2009,
Manuel
recorded a deed
without Plaintiff’s knowledge, wherein he purported to grant the subject
property to
himself and Sanchez, as tenants in common. Manuel died on April 15, 2009.
Sanchez
moved onto the
subject property after Manuel’s death. In or about June 2018, Sanchez stopped
paying her ½
share of the mortgage and her share of utilities costs for the subject
property.
On September 8,
2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action
against
Sanchez, All persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title,
estate, lien, or
interest in the
property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud
upon
Plaintiff’s
title thereto (“All Persons”) and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Quiet Title
2.
Declaratory Relief
A Case
Management Conference is set for March 23, 2023.
Attorney
Patricia Mireles (“Mireles”) of Superior Justice Law Group seeks to be
relieved as
counsel of record for Plaintiff Gonzalo Tovar Hernandez (“Client”).
At
the outset, the court notes that this instant motion was filed on February 22,
2023; Client’s
counsel
of record on that date was Kenneth C. Kocourek (“Kocourek”) of Superior Justice
Law
Group.
Mireles and Kocourek are both attorneys at Superior Justice Law Group and list
the same
address.
On
February 24, 2023, a Substitution of Attorney was filed, wherein Mireles
substituted
in
for Kocourek as Client’s counsel of record. The Substitution of Attorney
reflects a February
24,
2023 execution date by Kocourek and Mireles. The Substitution of Attorney, at
first glance,
would
appear to moot out the instant motion. However, a “Notice of Amended Proves of
Service
Regarding
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel” was filed concurrently with the Substitution
of
Attorney,
which leads the court to believe that the instant motion remains on calendar
and that
Mireles
wishes to be relieved as Client’s counsel. The court requests that Mireles
provide
clarification
in this regard at the time of the hearing.
The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw,
and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the
client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of
justice. (See
Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California
Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion
directed to the client (made on the Notice
of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a
declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the
confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of
Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section
284(1) (made on the Declaration in
Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form
(MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and
the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in
the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be
Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the 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.
Mireles represents that “[t]he [C]lient has failed to cooperate in the
handling of this case in such a manner as to compromise adequate representation
of his interest and in such a manner that the attorney cannot continue to
represent the best interest of the [C]lient. There has been a breakdown in
communication in the attorney/client relationship. Client does not cooperate
with the attorney’s advise in preparing the case. As a result, attorney cannot
represent [C]lient.” In a second
declaration, Mireles reiterates the above and adds that the attorney-client
relationship “has unalterably deteriorated.”
Mireles states that she has served the Client by mail at the
Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with this
declaration and that she has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the
address is current, via mail, return receipt requested.
The court
determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above
have been
sufficiently met.
Accordingly, the
motion is granted, effective upon the
filing of the proof of service reflecting
service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s
last known address.