Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV01515, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01515    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

OTIS VANN JR.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

CHRISTOPHER G. GORING, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV01515

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

July 26, 2022

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

           On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, David D. Miller, Patricia I. James, Miller & James, LLP, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be 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 section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure 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 and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

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.)

III.     DISCUSSION

David D. Miller, Patricia I. James, Miller & James, LLP, attorney of record for Plaintiff, seeks to be relieved on grounds there are irreconcilable differences regarding further handling of this action.  Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Court notes that the trial in this matter is currently set for February 22,2023, and no prejudice will result from granting this motion. 

 

However, Counsel has failed to file a sufficient proposed order (MC-053) listing all additional hearings and other proceedings that are set in this action. Accordingly, the hearing on this motion is continued to August 26, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. so that counsel may submit a revised order. A revised proposed order must be filed no later than August 19, 2022.

 

IV.     CONCLUSION

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.