Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 19STCV36329, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36329    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Motions of Plaintiffs’ Counsel the Law Office of Bryan Castorina to be Relieved as Attorney of Record. 

Plaintiffs Sergio Morales and Katerin Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this case seeking damages based on Defendant’s alleged forcible detainer of Plaintiffs’ residential property at 3231 City Terrace. Now, Plaintiffs’ counsel moves to be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs.

“The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney 's motion to withdraw as counsel of record 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.”  Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1173.  See also Jones v. Green (1946) 74 Cal. App. 2d 223, 230. The form notices, declarations, proposed orders, and proofs of service sufficiently comply with the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel. See CRC Rule 3.1362. Moving counsel’s declaration shows cognizable grounds for withdrawal:

• Breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (or personality clash).  Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.
• Client by conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively (e.g., noncooperation or noncommunication).  Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(4).  Cf.  Estate of Falco, supra, 188 Cal. App. 3d at 1020 (“We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's implicit finding rejecting the contention that respondents' lack of cooperation justified appellants' withdrawal.”).

Further, no opposing papers have been filed showing any prejudice to the client.  See Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(d). Therefore, the motions are granted, and the Court will sign the proposed orders submitted by counsel.