Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV29301, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29301    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Maritza Sandoval’s (“Plaintiff”) counsel of record, LA Century Law (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.  Counsel contends relief is necessary because of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.  Counsel has filed proof of service of the motion on Plaintiff and Defendant. 

However, there are at least three issues with the motion.  First, Counsel indicates that it has confirmed Plaintiff’s address as current by sending an email requesting confirmation on June 17, 2022.  However, Counsel does not provide whether Plaintiff actually confirmed her address or responded to the email.  Moreover, to the extent Counsel is relying on the email to confirm Plaintiff’s address, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(2) states: “If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.”  The court cannot locate any such declaration with Counsel’s notice of motion. 

Second, Counsel also provides that it was unable to confirm plaintiff’s address as current.  In previously denying a motion to be relieved filed by Counsel in this matter, the court informed Counsel that if Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed address, Counsel must serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court- located at Stanley Mosk Courthouse- pursuant to CCP §1011 and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d).  (Min. Order, Dec. 21, 2021.)  Counsel failed to file proof of service on the Clerk of the Court in connection with this motion. 

            Lastly, trial in this matter is set for September 7, 2022, which is less than one month after this hearing. 

            Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause.  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, none of which are asserted here.

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; Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461.)

The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from 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.)

Given that trial less than one month after this hearing, Plaintiff will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw.  Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is also denied on this ground.  

            Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice as to Counsel refiling it if Plaintiff obtains a trial continuance and addresses the above defects.

Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 10^th day of August 2022