Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV04584, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04584    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Marcelino Cortez Estrada’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Alex Megeredchian, Esq. (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.  Counsel contends relief is necessary because Plaintiff is unresponsive to Counsel’s communication attempts and Plaintiff is not cooperating.  Counsel provides it has served the moving papers on Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s last known address after confirming the address as current by skip tracing, though this is not entirely clear.  Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendants. 

Trial in this action is currently set for December 16, 2022, which is less than two months 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 two months, Plaintiff 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, the parties agree to a continuance of trial, the Court may consider a request from Plaintiff to continue the trial and to modify this tentative decision accordingly.

If the trial date is continued, the Court wishes to hear from Counsel concerning the sufficiency of the skip tracing search involved in confirming Plaintiff’s address.  Assuming the Court is satisfied with confirmation of Plaintiff’s address, the unopposed motion will be granted effective upon filing of a proof of service of the final order, as Counsel must give notice.

To the extent Counsel simultaneously attests that Counsel was unable to confirm a current address for Plaintiff, if Counsel is unable to show that they served Plaintiff at a confirmed address, then the requirement that Counsel serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court- located at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse- pursuant to CCP §1011(b) and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d) would preclude the granting of the motion. 

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 21^st day of October 2022