Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV19364, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV19364    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Ester Pourshalimi’s (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Raymond Ghermezian (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.[1] Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

            No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

To be granted relief as counsel, counsel must comply with California Rules of Court (CRC) 3.1362. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal. 

An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391.)

The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192.) An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.” (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).) A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh, supra.)

DISCUSSION

            Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reason: “There has been irreconcilable differences of opinion between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel leading to a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Specifically, certain significant issues surfaced related to the prosecution of this case, which to date remain unresolved. Current counsel and plaintiff are at an impasse with respect to these issues. Consequently, a dispute has arisen as to whether plaintiff’s counsel can proceed as attorney of record. The issues in question are fundamental and crucial to the outcome of this case. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that attorneys be relieved as counsel of record due to Justifiable cause. Present counsels has informed Plaintiff of this position and have requested Plaintiff agree to relieve counsel due to Justifiable cause. Plaintiff, however has been unresponsive to this request, thereby requiring the instant motion.” (MC-052.) The Court finds that this is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)   

However, Counsel has also not included the dates, times, locations, and subject matter of all future proceedings in this case.

Also, the Court notes that the only defendant who has appeared in this case, Ingrid D. Brookler, filed a Notice of Change of Handling Attorney on July 17, 2023, requesting that all future notices be directed to Dustin J. Lee. However, according to the proofs of service, Counsel has directed the moving papers by the mail to Brad Citron, Defendant’s former handling attorney.[2] Therefore, Counsel has not shown proof of service of the moving papers (MC-051, MC-052, MC-053) on all parties who have appeared in the action. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

            Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

            Moving party is to give notice and file a proof of service of such.