Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV39573, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39573    Hearing Date: May 29, 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 Ryan Caldwell’s (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Khashayar Eshraghi (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 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: “This motion is based upon the grounds that there has been an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that stands in the way of effective representation.” (MC-052.)

            Counsel has provided information for all future proceedings in this case. However, the Court notes that the final status conference is set for June 5, 2024, and trial is set for June 20, 2024. No motion to continue trial has been filed in this case. Given the proximity to the trial date, the Court finds that relieving counsel will likely prejudice Plaintiff’s rights. Counsel does not set forth facts showing that he has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff. (See CRPC 1.16(d).)

            Additionally, Counsel has been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s address despite conducting a TLO people’s search. The Court finds this is insufficient. Counsel must make other efforts to confirm the address such as mailing the motion papers to Plaintiff’s last known address, return receipt requested, calling Plaintiff’s last known telephone number or numbers, contacting persons familiar with Plaintiff, or any other method.

            Lastly, the proposed order does not contain Plaintiff’s full zip code, and the judicial officer information is incorrect throughout the moving papers.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to relieve counsel.  

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