On 09/13/2018 JESUS MARTINEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
*******1702
09/13/2018
Disposed - Dismissed
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
GARCIA MIGUEL
MARTINEZ JESUS
JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER
JOHNSON NANETTE
RYAN JOSEPH DAVID
3/12/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 03/12/2020
3/12/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)
11/26/2018: Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service
11/26/2018: Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service
10/29/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of due diligence
10/29/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Due diligence
9/13/2018: Complaint
9/13/2018: Summons - on Complaint
9/13/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
9/13/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/16/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/13/2020
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jesus Martinez, et al. on 09/13/2018, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action, pursuant to CCP 581(b)(3)
DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 03/12/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/12/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/12/2020; Result Type to Held
DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Nanette Johnson (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Christopher Johnson (Defendant)
DocketDeclaration of due diligence; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); Miguel Garcia (Plaintiff)
DocketDeclaration of Due diligence; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); Miguel Garcia (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); Miguel Garcia (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jesus Martinez (Plaintiff); Miguel Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: Christopher Johnson (Defendant); Nanette Johnson (Defendant)
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/12/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
Case Number: 18STLC11702 Hearing Date: January 28, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
(CCP § 284(2), CRC rule 3.1362)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Ana Quintanilla’s and Aida Fuentes Rivera’s Counsel’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to MARCH 11,2020 AT 10:30 AM in Department 25. At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Counsel is to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his Motions as discussed herein.
ANALYSIS:
Background
On September 13, 2018, Plaintiffs Aida Fuentes Rivera (“Rivera”), Ana Quintanilla (“Quintanilla”), and Jessica Martinez (“Martinez”), individually and as guardian ad litem for minors Jordy Veliz and Jordan Veliz, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Danielle Sinkford (“Defendant”). Counsel Joseph D. Ryan (“Counsel”) represents all three Plaintiffs.
On October 25, 2019, Counsel filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to Plaintiff Martinez. That motion was heard by this Court on January 28, 2020. On October 29, 2019, Counsel filed an additional two Motions to be Relieved as Counsel as to Plaintiff Quintanilla and Plaintiff Rivera (the “Motions”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs to the instant Motions have been filed.
Legal Standard & Discussion
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. (CCP § 284(2).) “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 Council Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC 3.1362(a), (c), (e).)
In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal service, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:
The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or
The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) & (2).)
Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel because he believes that due to a lack of cooperation and communication with both Quintanilla and Rivera, he cannot properly represent them in this matter. (Forms MC-052, ¶ 2.) Counsel states that after securing a settlement offer in December 2018, he has been unable to communicate with or locate Quintanilla or Rivera. (Id.) Indeed, Counsel has attempted to communicate with Quintanilla and Rivera via telephone, certified mail, and regular mail and has even retained investigative services to locate their present location without success. (Id.) Counsel has served the moving papers on Quintanilla and Rivera separately at their last known address but was unable to confirm that address despite calling their last known phone numbers and retaining investigative services. (Id.)
The Court is satisfied with Counsel’s reasoning for seeking to be relieved but notes that Counsel has not satisfied California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d). Specifically, the moving papers do not indicate that Plaintiff Martinez has also been served with these Motions. In addition, the hearing date on Forms MC-052 and MC-053 incorrectly state the hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2020. Also, Forms MC-051 confusingly state that the hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2020 on the box on the upper right-hand corner, but under item No. 2, states the hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2020.
Accordingly, Counsel is ordered correct and re-file the Forms with the new hearing date, re-serve Plaintiffs Quintanilla and Rivera, and serve Plaintiff Martinez with the instant Motions.
Conclusion & Order
Plaintiff Ana Quintanilla’s and Aida Fuentes Rivera’s Counsel’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel are CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 AT 10:30 AM in Department 25. At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Counsel is to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his Motions as discussed herein.
Counsel is ordered to give notice.