Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV41674, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41674    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Co-Defendant Two Brothers Auto Repair’s (“Defendant”) attorney of record, William Ferreira (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel.  Counsel provides that Defendant has failed to respond to Counsel’s communications, cannot be located, and appears to have abandoned the case. 

There are at least three issues with the motion.  First, Counsel failed to file a declaration and proposed order on judicial council forms MC-052 and MC-053.  The use of these forms is mandatory.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) 

Second, Counsel filed a proof of service on August 19, 2022, but the proof of service does not identify the documents served on Defendant.  Further, Defendant must file proof of service of the motion, declaration, and proposed order on Defendant and all other parties who have appeared in the case.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) 

Third, the Court notes that trial in this action is set for October 3, 2022, which is less than three weeks after the hearing on this motion. 

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 is set to commence in less than three weeks, Defendant will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw.  Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied.

However, if at the hearing on this motion, counsel for all parties are present and the parties agree to a continuance of trial, the Court may consider a request to continue the trial.

Moving 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 15^th day of September 2022