Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV05058 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV05058, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05058 Hearing Date: March 8, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID MEDINA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RIVES GROGAN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

Case No.: 21STCV05058

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 8, 2023

Defendant New Beginnings Christian Discipleship, a CA Corp.’s (“Defendant”) attorney of record, Arthur H. Barens, Esq. (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel. Counsel declares there has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, such that Counsel can no longer zealously represent Defendant. Counsel declares the moving papers were served on Defendant via mail at Defendant’s last known address. Counsel has filed proof of service of the notice of motion and declaration on Plaintiff and on all parties that have appeared.

However, there are at least four issues that prevent the motion from being granted.

First, Counsel’s proof of service states that Counsel served the notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel and declaration on Defendant and all parties that have appeared in the action. However, the Court cannot locate proof of service showing the proposed order was served on Defendant and all other parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).)

Second, to the extent that Counsel’s motion indicates it was served on Defendant by electronic service, 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 motion.[1]

Third, trial in this action is currently set for March 30, 2023, which is just over 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 the client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the 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 for just over three weeks after this hearing, Defendant will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw. Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied. The denial is without prejudice to Counsel re-filing the motion if the trial date is continued.

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 8^th day of March 2023

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Counsel declares the moving papers were served on Defendant at a confirmed address. In addition to confirming the address by email, Counsel declares he confirmed the address through certified mail, return receipt. It is noted that certified mail does not establish proof the address is confirmed unless there is a signed return receipt. (See Cal. Rules of court, rule 3.1362(d)(2).) No such signed return receipt was submitted with the motion.