Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV31366 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV31366, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31366 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

FIDEL RIVAS-GARCIA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOEUN GLORY, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 21STCV31366

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

January 10, 2023

Plaintiff Fidel Rivas-Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, Esq. (“Counsel”), has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, contending relief is necessary because there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney client relationship such that continued representation is impossible.[1] Counsel declares it served the moving papers on Plaintiff via mail at Plaintiff’s last known address. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

No opposition to the motion has been filed. However, the Court notes that there is a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on February 9, 2023, which is less than one month after the instant hearing, and a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff set for March 1, 2023.

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 there is a motion for summary judgment by a defendant set to be heard in less than one month, 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 the motion for summary judgment and motion for terminating sanctions, the Court may consider a request from Plaintiff to continue the trial and to modify this tentative decision accordingly.

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 10^th day of January 2023

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time for the hearing on Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted in part on December 21, 2022. In relevant part, the hearing on Defendant Joeun Glory, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment was continued from January 10, 2023, to February 9, 2023, and Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions was continued from January 30, 2023, to March 1, 2023. (Min. Order, Dec. 23, 2022.)