Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV24495, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24495    Hearing Date: January 6, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a car accident that occurred in 2007.

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff Aleena Montoya (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Erika Jannett Salazar, Maria Salazar, and Pedro Salazar, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, (“Defendants”) alleging negligence. 

On December 13, 2022, Robert Zavidow filed this Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (hereinafter, “Motion”) for Plaintiff. No opposition was filed.

When Zavidow filed the Motion, the Final Status Conference was set for February 9, 2023 and Trial was set for February 23, 2023. However, on January 4, 2023, the Court continued the Final Status Conference to May 3, 2023, and Trial to May 17, 2023. Discovery and motions deadlines were not continued and remain related to the prior February 23, 2023, Trial date.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’  [Citation.]”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)  The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”  (Ramirez v. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

          California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council 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, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and 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 Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Robert Zavidow, counsel for Plaintiff Aleena Montoya, requests to be relieved as counsel. Due to a problem with the trial date in the Proposed Order, the Court cannot grant Zavidow’s motion.

          Zavidow filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel on December 13, 2022. (Judicial Council Form, MC-051). That same day, Zavidow also filed a Declaration in Support of the Motion in which he contends that the attorney-client relationship between him and Plaintiff “has broken down beyond means to repair. Client is non responsive.” (Judicial Council Form, MC-053, pg. 1, sec. 2). Zavidow also filed a Proposed Order Granting the Motion. (Judicial Council Form, MC-053). Zavidow filed proof of service of all three documents on both Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel.

          Although Zavidow filed all the necessary forms pursuant to CRC, rule 3.1362, the Proposed Order incorrectly states that the Final Status Conference and Trial are scheduled for February 9, 2023 and February 23, 2023, respectively. Following a January 4, 2023 hearing on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue the Final Status Conference and Trial Date, they are now scheduled for May 3, 2023 and May 17, 2023, respectively. Therefore, the language in the Proposed Order must be revised to reflect the new dates.

          Accordingly, this hearing is continued to allow Zavidow to serve a revised proposed order reflecting the current final status conference and trial dates.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            The hearing on Robert Zavidow of The Law Offices of Larry Parker, Inc.’s Motion To Be Relieved as Counsel is continued to ________. Counsel shall file a revised proposed order not later than 5 court days prior to the hearing date.

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’s 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.