Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 21STCV07074, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV07074 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: 58
Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki
Hearing
Date: August 5, 2022
Case
Name: Thomas Villanueva,
et al. v. Robbins Brothers Jewelry, Inc., et al.
Case
No.: 21STCV07074
Matter: Motion to Be Relieved as
Counsel
Moving
Party: Plaintiff’s Counsel
Responding
Party: Unopposed
Tentative Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.
Background
and procedural history
On July 6, 2021, Plaintiffs Thomas
Villanueva and Hernando Quintero filed the First Amended Complaint against Defendants
Robbins Brothers Jewelry, Inc. and Mark Pimental alleging discrimination under
the Fair Employment and Housing Act, harassment based on religion, retaliation
based on religion, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination.
Plaintiffs were allegedly employees
of Defendants in the loss prevention department. After Plaintiffs reportedly investigated
fraud conducted by employees who inflated sales quota to generate bonuses, they
were terminated in May 2020. The
Complaint also alleged a history of religious discrimination spanning back to
2012.
Plaintiffs were initially represented
by two firms: Law Office of Neil R. Anapol and Lawrence & Associates. On July 5, 2022, Amy B. Lawrence of Lawrence
& Associates disassociated from the case, leaving Neil R. Anapol as counsel
of record for Plaintiffs.
One day later, Neil R. Anapol moved
to be relieved as counsel, stating that the Plaintiffs have breached the
retainer agreement and the attorney-client relationship has broken down. On July 13, 2022, both attorneys filed a
Notice of Attorney Lien.
The Court grants the motion to be
relieved as counsel.
Discussion
An attorney
is entitled to withdraw upon the consent of the client, or without that consent
if approved by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284; Ramirez v. Sturdevant
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) In the
latter case, counsel must make a motion to be relieved as attorney of record.
The form and content of such motion are governed by California Rule of Court
3.1362. The motion must be made using
mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil
(MC-051), Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (b),
(e).)
The
declaration accompanying the motion to be relieved as counsel must state “in
general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the
attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section
284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure
section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(b).)
The notice
must be done by personal service, electronically, or mail. If it is done via
mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a
declaration confirming the service address to be the most current residence or
that it is the client’s last known address, and the attorney has been unable to
locate a more current address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1)(A)-(B).)
Here, Mr. Anapol
has complied with the Rules of Court by filing the appropriate forms and
provides a supporting declaration stating why he is moving to be relieved as
counsel. Notice was provided to the
Plaintiffs electronically and via U.S. mail.
Counsel averred that Plaintiffs’ addresses were current by confirming
with them telephonically.
The trial
date is scheduled for February 27, 2023, which is over six months away, and may
likely be continued if needed for Plaintiffs to obtain a new attorney. Thus, there is a low degree of prejudice to
Plaintiff in allowing Counsel to withdraw.
Accordingly,
the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted.