Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV44564, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44564    Hearing Date: October 19, 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 Haroon Rashid’s (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Adina A. Ostoia (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in attorney-client communication.  

            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: “[t]here has been a breakdown in attorney-client communication such that continued representation is no longer feasible. We have been unable to have the client sign the substitution of attorney.” (MC-052.) This reason appears to implicate Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d), which is a permissive withdrawal. MC-052 also included two declarations from other attorneys in Counsel’s firm. The Declarations of Gary Loftis and Iris Vasquez indicate that Plaintiff threatened to withhold attorney fees from the proposed settlement in this case. (Loftis Decl. ¶ 5–9; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 5–9.)  

The Court also notes that Plaintiff was personally served with the motion, declaration, and proposed order; Proof of Service of such was filed on July 18, 2023. Trial is set for this case on January 18, 2024. Counsel has properly given notice of the future hearings and proceedings. Therefore, the Court finds the motion to be relieved as counsel is justified. (See CRPC 3-700(C)(1)(d).)

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to relieve counsel.

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