Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV08355, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08355    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    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 Miriam Carolina Lopez Monroy’s (Plaintiff) counsel of record Nina Sargsyan and Downtown LA Law Group (Counsel), move to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed for this motion.

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 has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required, for Plaintiff.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Counsel states the instant motions are filed for the following reasons: “Plaintiff Miriam Carolina Lopez Monroy no longer responds to counsel’s attempts at communication. No longer follows advice or suggestions, and the level of trust necessary to continue representation no longer exists.” (MC-052.) The Court finds that there is a valid reason for the withdrawal.  (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.) 

            However, the Court finds that the proposed order (MC-053) contains errors regarding the manner of service.  Consequently, the Court orders Counsel to file within 5 calendar days of the hearing an amended form MC-053.

            Further, Counsel must serve the signed orders (MC-053) within 10 days of the date of the order, and file a proof of service of such.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Plaintiff until Counsel files and serves the updated proposed order.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

            Accordingly, the Court conditionally GRANTS the motion pending Counsel’s filing and service of the updated form.  Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.