Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV34404, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34404    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of The Gorman Group, Inc. to be Relieved as Counsel-Civil.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that this action arises out of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme to deprive Plaintiffs of over six million dollars, by way of Defendant LIZHI and Defendant BAI’S positions of trust as sole operators of Plaintiff NING’S business, 4WD, while Plaintiff resided outside of the country.

Now, counsel moves to be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs by declaring that they have not cooperated or paid expenses for trial preparation and expert witnesses.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.

ANALYSIS

Here, the form notice, proposed form order, and proof of service, sufficiently comply with the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

While counsel’s declaration and the proposed order are not on the official forms, the Court has discretion to accept the customized declaration and to instruct counsel to submit a proposed order on the Judicial Council form. Courts may overlook harmless procedural errors made in documents or proceedings that do not affect substantial rights of parties. Code Civ. Proc., § 475; Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1252

Substantively, moving counsel’s declaration shows cognizable grounds for withdrawal:

• 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 v. Decker, supra, 188 Cal App.3d p. 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.”).
• Client breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16; Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.

Finally, the client has filed no opposing document in order to show prejudice caused by attorney withdrawal. See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16, subdiv. (d).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court grants the motion, and will sign an official form order submitted by counsel.