DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV13311·la·Civil·Employment
Hearing todayGRANTED

Brittney Conley v. The People Concern

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
731
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBrittney Conley
DefendantThe People Concern

Attorneys

Brenda Burton(Laurel Employment Law)for Plaintiff

Ruling

on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] 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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely. DATED: September 1, 2026 _____________________________________ MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT BRITTNEY CONLEY, an Individual, Plaintiff, vs. THE PEOPLE CONCERN, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO: 26STCV13311 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL--CIVIL Dept. 731 September 1, 2026 8:30 a.m. Matter No. 8

| Moving Party: Counsel, Brenda Burton, Esq. of Laurel Employment Law Opposing Party: None Notice: OK Now before the Court is counsel Brenda Burton, Esq.'s motion to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Brittney Conley.

The Court's review shows that counsel's moving papers satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. The motion and its corresponding declaration and proposed order were properly executed, filed, and served on Plaintiff and on counsel for Defendant The People Concern, via authorized means, as reflected in the proofs of service accompanying the moving papers. (See Jul. 13, 2026, Filings & attached Proofs of Service.)

As no trial has been set in this action, and as no opposition from Plaintiff or Defendant appears in the record, insufficient prejudice exists here to override relief. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 [court should consider whether the attorney's "withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests"].)

Moreover, there is no basis to determine that undue delay or injustice will arise from the Court relieving counsel of representation for Defendant. (See Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 [motion should be denied if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice].)

The Court accordingly GRANTS counsel's motion, which shall be effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client. Plaintiff Brittney Conley is ordered 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 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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely. DATED: September 1, 2026 _____________________________________ MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share