Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV23097, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23097    Hearing Date: November 22, 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

MOTION

            Attorney Ryne Osborne (Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Joe Leonard (Plaintiff).

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.)

ANALYSIS

            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.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reasons: Plaintiff Joe Leonard passed away on September 13, 2022. After a search vendor informed Counsel that Joe Leonard had died, Counsel contacted the next of kin, Rachel Leonard. On March 15, 2023, Counsel spoke to Rachel Leonard about status of the case to determine how she wished to proceed. She informed Counsel that she would discuss this matter with others and get back to Counsel. Counsel spoke with Rachel Leonard who confirmed by telephone that she “was the only one left.” (Osborne Dec.) “Ms. Rachel Leonard was informed of the pending motion to be relieved and that she would be in charge of her deceased brother’s case and she is able to retain counsel if she so desired for the case.” (Id.) The Court finds that counsel has not sufficiently established that withdrawal is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to be relieved.

            The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.410 for February 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Counsel shall give notice to Rachel Leonard within 10 days and file a proof of service of such.

            The Clerk of Court shall give notice to all other parties.