Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV32551, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32551    Hearing Date: May 24, 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

            Plaintiff Carl Smith’s (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Levon Kantzabedian, Esq./BD&J, PC (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. 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 states the instant motion is filed for the following reason: “There has been a significant breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, which has significantly impeded counsel's ability to effectively prosecute this case and represent Plaintiff's interest. Plaintiff Carl Smith is deceased, and withdrawal is mandatory pursuant to Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(a)(2).” (MC-052.)

            Counsel has been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s current address despite calling Plaintiff’s last known telephone numbers and hiring a private investigator. No proof of service is attached to this motion. Counsel has not provided a reason why he believes Plaintiff is deceased nor additional proof, such as a death certificate. If Plaintiff is deceased, Counsel has not shown that he has inquired into Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor in interest to see if someone with standing would like to continue the case. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 377.31.) Therefore, the Court finds the efforts to confirm Plaintiff’s address and provide notice to be insufficient.

Also, Counsel has not included the dates, times, locations, and subject matter of all future proceedings in this case.

            Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

            Moving party is to give notice and file a proof of service of such.