Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV22334, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22334    Hearing Date: March 14, 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 Maria Lozano Medina and Margarito Esparza Islas’ (Plaintiffs) counsel of record, Brian E. Claypool (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

            No opposition has been filed.

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: “Withdrawal is sought because Plaintiffs' counsel cannot zealously represent the clients due to irreconcilable differences. During initial stages of counsel's investigation, a disagreement between counsel and clients occurred as to the best way to proceed with the case. As a result, Plaintiffs and counsel reached an impasse and these irreconcilable differences make it impossible for counsel to represent plaintiffs. At the time, it was agreed plaintiffs would look for new counsel as there has been a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship between current Counsel and plaintiffs. Plaintiff's counsel is seeking to remove himself from this case for his own well-being, and because it is in the best interest of his clients as he would not be able to zealously represent them based on their irreconcilable differences.” (MC-052.) The Court finds that this is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).)   

However, Counsel has not included the dates, times, locations, and subject matter of all future proceedings in this case. The Court orders Counsel to file within 5 calendar days of the hearing amended forms MC-053 (one 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 orders.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)  

Accordingly, the Court conditionally grants the motions pending Counsel’s filing and service of the updated forms.  Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.