Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV03079, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions. The tentative ruling will not become the
final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to
submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must
agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call
Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0160) and state
that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of
the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative
ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at
the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 21STCV03079 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: 40
Case
No.: 21STCV03079
[TENTATIVE]
RULING RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS
COUNSEL
Plaintiff Faisal Iqbal alleges that Defendant Aziz, on behalf of
himself and the two corporate defendants VFX Hollywood LLC and Mia Jee Tandoori
LLC requested to borrow funds from Plaintiff.
Plaintiff permitted Defendant Aziz to make charges on Plaintiff’s credit
cards for four years. Although Defendant
initially made timely payments, he stopped in November 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owe
Plaintiff a sum of money plus interest.
Based on these facts, Plaintiff brought this action, alleging claims
of (1) breach of contract, (2) fraudulent inducement, and (3) common counts.
The instant Motion to Relieve Counsel was brought by Defendants’
Counsel, Steven C. Valerio, Kaila M. Bradley, and Lagerloff, LLP, who seek to
withdraw from representation of Defendants because of Defendants’ failure to
respond.
An attorney in an
action may withdraw at any time before or after judgment or final
determination upon the order of the court, upon the application of either
client or attorney, after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284(2)).
CRC Rule 3.1362 requires:
1.
Notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the
Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Civil form (MC-051));
2.
A declaration stating in general terms, and without
compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship, why a
motion under CCP §284(2), is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP
§284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved
as Counsel Civil form (MC-052));
3.
Service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all
other parties who have appeared in the case; and
4.
The proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order
Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Civil form (MC-053)).
The motion should be
denied if withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Rules Prof.
Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2); see also 1
Witkin Cal. Pro., Attorneys §72 (2008).) The motion should also be denied
if it will cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice. (Mandell
v. Superior Court, (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) The determination
whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record
lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, having in mind
whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the
case. (Lempert v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161,
1173.) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for
withdrawal. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004,
1014.) An attorney is not limited to withdrawing from a case for cause and may
withdraw whenever withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the
client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 914
The Court will
GRANT the Motion for the following reasons.
First, the
Motion procedurally conforms with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362,
subdivisions (a), (c), (d), and (e), because Counsel provided: (1) Civil form
MC-051 (Motion) on 1/19/23; (2) Civil form MC-052 (Declaration) on 1/19/23; and
(3) Proof of Service showing service of Forms MC-051 and MC-052 by paper mail
on 1/19/23. ¿ Although Counsel failed to provide Civil form MC-053 (Proposed
Order), the Court does not find this defect as sufficient grounds for denial.
Second, the reason given for withdrawal is valid. Here, Counsel states “This matter is
indefinitely stayed due to Defendant Tariq Aziz’s filed bankruptcy. My office previously on multiple occasions
requested Mr. Tariq to sign a substitution of counsel but he has not signed or
returned my calls or emails.” The Court
finds the stated reasons to be sufficient.
Third,
there is no showing that Defendants will suffer prejudice since there was no
opposition and a trial date is not yet set.
In
light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as
Counsel.