Department 58

Hearing Date: January 23, 2023

Case Name: Control Air Enterprises, LLC v. Webcor Construction, L.P. et al.

Case No.: 22STCV27572

Matter: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel x2

Moving Party: Defendants Next Century Partners, LLC and Next Century Partners Mezzanine Borrower, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Court will permit counsel seeking relief to state at the hearing in general terms the purpose for the motion.

This is a construction dispute between a subcontractor, general contractor, and the developer of the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel.

Counsel for Defendants Next Century Partners, LLC and Next Century Partners Mezzanine Borrower, LLC (NCPMB), Peter C. Sheridan, filed a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. The next hearings are set for February 24, 2023 on Defendant NCPMB’s demurrer and Case Management Conference.

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 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).)

Here, Mr. Sheridan avers the following as to why he is moving to be relieved:

“This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 284 on the grounds that there is a genuine basis for withdrawal under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. The specific facts which give rise to this motion may be confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6068(e), Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6(a), and/or by the attorney-client privilege (Cal. Evid. Code, §§ 950, et seq. Should the Court desire further information to ascertain movant's good faith basis for this motion and for the withdrawal, movant respectfully requests that the Court hold an in camera hearing outside of the presence of all other parties so that more specific facts demonstrating good cause for this withdrawal may be demonstrated to the Court without violating the attorney-client privilege.”

Mr. Sheridan has only offered reasons for why he cannot state reasons for the withdrawal, but no actual reasons. While Counsel has requested an in camera hearing outside the presence of other parties so that the specific facts demonstrating good cause for this withdrawal may be demonstrated to the court, he does not offer general grounds for the withdrawal. This does not comply with the court rule. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c).)

While the Court could deny without prejudice the motion and permit a supplemental declaration, in the interests of judicial economy and because the motion is unopposed, the Court will permit Mr. Sheridan to testify at the hearing in general terms, without breaching the attorney-client relationship, why the motion has been made.