Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV18457, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18457    Hearing Date: February 21, 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

            Plaintiffs Tevon Cullors-Tillman and Lycette Martinez’s Counsel (Plaintiffs) counsel of record, Boris Sargsyan (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.

            No opposition has been filed for these motions.

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: “A conflict that has unexpectedly arisen in which Boris Sargsyan, Esq., and M&Y Personal Injury Lawyers can no longer effectively represent Plaintiff because there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.” (MC-052.) The Court finds that this is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)¿¿¿

When the motions were originally heard on February 15, 2024, the Court noted that the proof of service only indicated that the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved were served, but not the declaration (MC-052) and the Order (MC-053). The Court continued the hearing to allow Counsel to file the appropriate proof of service. (Min. Order, 2/15/24.)

On February 15, 2024, Counsel filed a declaration of Misty Perez. In it, Ms. Perez declares under penalty of perjury that on November 28, 2023, she “caused the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration in Support and Proposed Order to be served via Fedex Tracking Nos. 774268330666 and 774269524000 and email to the last known address and email of Plaintiffs Tevon Cullors-Tillman and Lycette Martinez. (Perez Decl. ¶ 2.) She declares she “made a typographical error pertaining to the name of the document that was served on the proof of service for the Declarations. This was an inadvertent mistake on my part but can attest that all documents were served appropriately.” (Id.) Based on this declaration, the Court finds that all papers were served on Plaintiffs.

However, Counsel has not listed all future hearing dates in this case in form MC-052 and MC-053. The Court orders Counsel to file within 5 calendar days of the hearing an amended form MC-053 for each Plaintiff which should include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party.¿ 

¿ 

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 Plaintiffs 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.¿