Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV26833, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26833    Hearing Date: August 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

            Defendant Bird Rides, Inc.’s (Defendant) counsel of record, Jillian E. Stanley (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. Counsel contends relief is necessary due to Defendant filing a Chapter 11 petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court and being unable to compensate Counsel.

            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: “I, Jillian E. Stanley, am current counsel of record for defendant Bird Rides, Inc. On December 20, 2023, Bird Rides, Inc. filed a Voluntary Chapter 11 Petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, thereby commencing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case that is jointly administered under lead Case No. 23-bk-20514-LMI. By virtue of its bankruptcy filing, Bird Rides, Inc.'s property is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Bird Rides, Inc.'s bankruptcy case has not been dismissed. As a result, my law firm and I can no longer represent and perform uncompensated legal work for the Bird Rides, Inc. Bird Rides, Inc. consents to the withdrawal, but does not currently have counsel to substitute. (MC-052.)

            Counsel has not provided notice of this motion on all parties who have appeared in this case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective.

            Moreover, counsel does not explain what “uncompensated legal work” would remain if the matter is stayed as to Bird due to bankruptcy. The Court notes that because counsel has filed a document entitled “suggestion of bankruptcy,” no action has apparently been taken by the Clerk’s Office. Counsel must file a proper notice of stay of proceedings, attaching the required documents.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to relieve counsel. 

The matter is set for an OSC re stay as to Defendant Bird Rides and whether Plaintiff will seek relief from stay on October 2, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant Bird Rides shall file a proper notice of stay at least 10 court days in advance of the hearing. 

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