Department 58

Hearing Date: November 21, 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. 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.

At the hearing on the motion to be relieved, Mr. Anapol indicated that the matter was resolved with his client, and he withdrew the motion.

On October 25, 2022, Mr. Anapol filed his second motion to be relieved as counsel. Mr. Anapol avers that his client has breached the retainer agreement and refuses to follow his advice.

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 was recently continued to July 24, 2023, which is over eight months away. 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.