Motion to be relieved as counsel
those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
(2) The motion to consolidate:
(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.
Plaintiff did not comply with any of these requirements.
Clerk shall give notice of this ruling.
5 Bankers TENTATIVE RULING: Healthcare Group, LLC vs. For the reasons set forth below, the motion by Alexander Penley of Nguyen Cordoba Legal Group to be relieved as counsel for Devin Nguyen is DENIED without prejudice.
Statement of Law
An attorney may withdraw even without cause as long as “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) It is within the court’s discretion as to whether to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw because such withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceeding; however, such discretion is to be exercised reasonably. (See Mandell v. Sup. Ct (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)
A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284(2) shall be directed to the client and shall be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil form (MC-051). (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(a).) No memorandum is required for the motion. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.l362(b)). The motion shall be accompanied by a declaration stating in general terms, without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship, why counsel is
making a motion instead of filing a consent. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(c)). If the motion is served by mail, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) 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 prior to filing the motion. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(d)).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The motion may be brought on various grounds, some of which include the client’s failure to pay attorney fees (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406), the client’s insistence on an action that is not justified under existing law or by good faith argument (Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1015), and a conflict of interest between counsel and the client (Aceves v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 584, 592).
Analysis
Here, Counsel Alexander has filed multiple versions of the moving papers for this motion.
On May 5, 2026, Counsel filed a notice (ROA #59), moving declaration (ROA # 61), and proposed order (ROA #60). However, section 4 of Judicial Council Form MC-051 was not completed and sections 3 (a)-(b) and 6 were not completed from Judicial Council Form MC-052. Counsel also filed a concurrent proof of service by mail of these documents on the client on 05/05/26. (ROA #57).
On May 26, 2026, Counsel then filed a second proof of service by mail of the moving papers on the client, which was purportedly done on May 19, 2026. (ROA #67).
On June 15, 2026, Counsel filed a second moving declaration (ROA # 76). However, sections 3(b)(1)-(2) and section 6 of Judicial Council Form MC-052 were not completed in this version.
On June 24, 2026, Counsel filed another version of the motion papers (ROA #86-notice), (ROA #82-declaration), (ROA # 87-proposed order). This last version has all of the sections of the required judicial council forms correctly filled out. Counsel also filed a third proof of service of the motion papers on June 24, 2026. (ROA #84). This proof of service, however, states that service was purportedly done by mail on the client on May 5, 2026.
On its face, the May 5, 2026, and June 15, 2026, versions of the motion are incomplete and insufficient for the court to grant the motion. Only the June 24, 2026, version is procedurally and substantively sufficient for the court to grant the motion.
However, because Counsel also filed three separate proofs of service for the matter, the court cannot determine which version of the papers Counsel served on the client and when.
Here, the version that contained all of the correctly filled out information was filed on June 24, 2026. The proof of service on the client that was filed on June 24, 2026 (ROA #84), purportedly showed service by mail from Boca Raton, Florida to the client in Garden Grove California on May 5, 2026. It appears unlikely that the May 5, 2026, version that was actually served on the client would have contained the later-filed corrected June 24, 2026, version. Indeed, why would Counsel have re-filed the June 15, 2026, and June 24, 2026, versions of the motion if the May 5, 2026, version was purportedly already correct to begin with? Why would there also be three different proofs of service?
It appears more credible that the June 24, 2026, versions of the motion were served on June 24, 2026, but the June 24, 2026, proof of service (ROA #84) contained a typo (May 5, 2025—from the prior proof of service (ROA # 57) that was not correctly modified). Service on June 24, 2026, however, would not provide the client with sufficient notice. To allow the client the appropriate 16 court days plus 10 additional days for out-of-state mailing notice (given that Counsel is mailing from Florida), Counsel would have had to serve the June 24, 2026, version of the motion papers by mail on June 12, 2026.
Finally, there is no showing that any versions of the moving papers were served on opposing parties.
Counsel’s multiple filings on the same motion, without leave from the court, has caused confusion and has required the court to needlessly scour the record to analyze a simple, straightforward, unopposed motion.
Given these procedural defects, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving counsel to give notice.