Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV03515, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03515    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff Wendell Budrow (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against Defendants Fairplex RV Park (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50 on the following causes of action:  (1) negligence;  and (2) premises liability.

On October 14, 2021, Defendant Los Angeles County Fair Association, erroneously sued and served as Fairplex RV Park, filed its Answer.

On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel Fernando D. Vargas, Esq. (“Counsel”) filed his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“First Motion”), averring that there had been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.  (First Mot., Decl. Vargas, p. 1.)  On May 4, 2022, Counsel filed a proof of service regarding Plaintiff, but not Defendant.  On May 26, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the First Motion because:  (1) Counsel did not serve Defendant;  (2) Counsel’s proposed order did not fill in Items 7, 8, or 9;  and (3) Counsel was directed to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel and seek to continue the trial date so as to permit Plaintiff sufficient time to obtain new counsel if Plaintiff wishes to do so.  (Minute Order, May 26, 2022, p. 1.)

On June 23, 2022, Counsel filed his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Second Motion”), averring the same as before.  (Second Mot., Decl. Vargas, p. 1.)  Also on June 23, 2022, Counsel filed his proof of service regarding both Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel.  (Proof of Service, June 23, 2022, p. 3.)  However, Counsel again failed to fill in Items 7, 8, or 9 in his proposed order.  (Proposed Order, June 23, 2022, p. 1–2.)  While the Court noted that it did not find that there would be prejudice to Plaintiff from this late withdrawal due to the fact that Plaintiff and his counsel had not spoken for a period of time, the Court again continued the hearing on the Second Motion because of the issues with the proposed form.  The Court ordered that the proposed order must be filed by July 15, 2022.  (Minute Order, July 11, 2022, p. 1.)  Counsel filed the correct proposed order on July 19, 2022.  The Court denied the Second Motion because Counsel filed the correct proposed order after the court-ordered deadline.  (Minute Order, July 21, 2022, p. 2.)

On July 19, 2022, pursuant to stipulation by the parties to continue Trial, the Court continued Trial from July 28, 2022, to May 25, 2023.  

On August 3, 2022, Counsel filed his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Third Motion to be Relieved as Counsel”), averring the same as before.  (Third Mot. to be Relieved as Counsel, Decl. Vargas, p. 1.)  Plaintiff concurrently filed a proposed order (with the same corrections as before) and a proof of service regarding both Plaintiff and Defendant.  (Proposed Order, August 3, 2022, pp. 1–2; Proof of Service, August 3, 2022, p. 3.)

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have filed anything in response to Counsel’s Third Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

The Court now considers Counsel’s Third Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

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

          Fernando D. Vargas, Esq. has again filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, moving to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Wendell Budrow.  Counsel’s Third Motion to be Relieved as Counsel complies with the requirements listed above:  (1) it directs notice of motion and motion to his client;  (2) it includes a declaration that does not violate the attorney-client privilege;  (3) it has been served on the client and all other parties who have appeared (i.e., Defendant Los Angeles County Fair Association);  and (4) it has a correctly-completed proposed order.  Moreover, as the date for Trial has been continued by several months, the Court is even less concerned than before about potential prejudice to Plaintiff from Counsel’s withdrawal.

          Based on the foregoing, Counsel’s Third Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          Plaintiff’s counsel, Fernando D. Vargas, Esq.’s Motion To Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

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.