Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV35771, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35771    Hearing Date: November 8, 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

            Defendants Steve Self and Jonelle Oil Corporation’s (Defendants) counsel of record, Steven L. Boortz, Law Offices of Steven L. Boortz (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendants. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

            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.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)  Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reason: “The client, Steve Self (Sole Principal of Defendant Jonell Oil Corp), by his conduct has made it unreasonably difficult for me to carry out the representation effectively.  Mr. Self has ceased communicating with me.  I received one email 5 weeks ago, the only communication with him since early July, 2024.  Despite numerous attempts to contact him about this case, and despite promises from his administrative assistant that he would respond (his assistant has responded to some emails promising Mr. Self would call), he has not;  Mr. Self has failed to heed my advice; and they are in breach of material terms of our agreement; all leading to a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  The clients are in breach of material terms of the agreement with me, relating to the representation, and I have given Mr. Self a reasonable warning after the breach that I will withdraw unless they fulfill the agreement.” (MC-052.)

            The Court notes that the final status conference is set for November 12, 2024, and trial is set for November 25, 2024. No motion to continue trial has been filed in this case. Given the proximity to the trial date, the Court finds that relieving counsel will likely prejudice Defendants’ rights. Counsel does not set forth facts showing that he has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of Defendants. (See CRPC 1.16(d).)

            Additionally, Counsel only shows service of the moving papers on Defendants via electronic service; however, there is no proof that Defendants consented to electronic service. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c).)  Moreover, the proposed order states that Defendants received notice by mail. Also, it does not appear that all parties that have appeared in this action have received notice. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

            Lastly, information on all future proceedings has not been provided and the proposed order is incomplete.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to relieve counsel.  

Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proofs of service of such.