Mario Alberto Acosta v. Suhail T. Berber Arroyo, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 506) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT 506 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT MARIO ALBERTO ACOSTA, Plaintiff, vs. SUHAIL T. BERBER ARROYO, et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 23STCV24892 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. September 3, 2026 |

R. Grace Rodriguez, counsel of record for Plaintiff Mario Acosta, seeks to be relieved as counsel. No party opposed the motion. Counsel does not provide the mandatory Form MC-053 proposed order. Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney's request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Based on counsel's declaration, the Court believes Plaintiff will be prejudiced by withdrawal.

Counsel declares that on June 18, 2026, Plaintiff appeared at counsel's office to terminate the representation, where "[t]he client's demeanor and statements on that date raised substantial concerns regarding the client's ability to make independent and voluntary decisions regarding this litigation." Plaintiff read a prepared statement from his phone, was unable to explain his own words when questioned, and reversed his prior factual position on a central issue in this case. Plaintiff's stated position "was directly and materially inconsistent with the factual account he provided at the initial consultation, and appeared to be the product of external direction rather than his own independent judgment."

According to counsel, Plaintiff has a documented history of traumatic brain injury, and he currently resides with his mother, who is a Defendant in this action. "Under these circumstances, counsel cannot be confident that the client's directives reflect his own independent, informed, and voluntary judgment." Due to these events, and the upcoming December 28, 2026 trial date, the Court believes Plaintiff may be prejudiced by counsel's withdrawal.

Plaintiff Mario Acosta is ordered to appear at the hearing (remote appearance permitted) to clarify these issues. If Plaintiff is unable to attend the September 3, 2026 hearing, the Court will continue the hearing to another date. The Court is not inclined to rule on the motion without hearing from Plaintiff.

Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Dated this 3rd day of September 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->