NORMA OCHOA VS AMBER NICOLE HUEZO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9559    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiffs’ address.  The motion is denied for two reasons.  First, Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3). 

Second, trial is scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions.  Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so.  Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.

Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. 

Case Number: ****9559    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs’ attorney previously moved to be relieved as counsel for each of the two plaintiffs, Norma Ochoa and Saul Romero. The Court denied the motions for two reasons. First, the Court found that Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3). Second, the Court noted that trial was scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions.

On 1/16/20, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only. The motion is denied. Once again, Counsel failed to submit a proposed order on the motion with proof of service of same. Additionally, Counsel failed to file the mandatory judicial council form declaration on Form MC-052. Absent these documents, the Court cannot grant the relief sought.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: ****9559    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only (Counsel does not seek to be relieved as counsel for the remaining plaintiffs, who have settled), contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff’s address. The Court previously denied a similar motion to be relieved because there was no proof of service of the proposed order on the motion, and also because the trial date was set unreasonably close to the hearing date on the motion to be relieved.

Counsel has now filed proof of service of all moving papers on Romero and Defendant. Counsel also had the trial date continued to 5/13/20. In light of the lack of opposition, the motion to be relieved is granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order granting the motion on Plaintiff, Romero.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Dated this 10^th day of March, 2020