Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department 53
bonnie duboff ; Plaintiff, vs. linda schermer , et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC617750
Hearing Date: July 6, 2020
Time: 10:00 a.m.
[Tentative] Order RE:
Motion to be relieved as counsel
MOVING PARTY: Alex M. Weingarten, Guido E. Toscano, and Venable LLP
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.
DISCUSSION
Alex M. Weingarten, Guido E. Toscano, and Venable LLP (“Defendant’s Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Linda J. Schermer.
“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.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted]
Hearing Date
July 06, 2020
Type
Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department 53
bonnie duboff ; Plaintiff, vs. linda schermer , et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC617750
Hearing Date: July 6, 2020
Time: 10:00 a.m.
[Tentative] Order RE:
Motion to be relieved as counsel
MOVING PARTY: Alex M. Weingarten, Guido E. Toscano, and Venable LLP
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.
DISCUSSION
Alex M. Weingarten, Guido E. Toscano, and Venable LLP (“Defendant’s Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Linda J. Schermer.
“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.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted]