Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 22STCV37126, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Yenmy Sazo; the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Marvin Medina; the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Adreana Medina; the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Lesly Meina; the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Alexandena Medina; the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Robert Ackermann as to plaintiff Christopher Medina; will be continued to another date unless Defendant waives notice of the motion.

This is a habitability case. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Cesar Sazo, Ana Diaz, Ana Sazo, Omar Hernandez, Yenmy Sazo, Marvin Medina, Javier Hernandez, Jaiden Garcia, Christopher Medina, Lesly Medina, Adreana Medina, and Alexanden Medina filed suit against defendants Roberto Sanchez, Jill Michie, and JRM Property Management, Inc (collectively Defendants).

Now, counsel Robert Ackermann (Moving Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Yenmy Sazo, Marvin Medina, Adreana Medina, Lesly Medina, Alexandena Medina, and Christopher Medina (collectively Plaintiffs).

The first issue is whether Moving Counsel has complied with the procedural requirements to be relieved as counsel. Moving Counsel filed all three required forms (MC-051, -052, and -053) for each of the plaintiffs, and the documents themselves also indicate that the client was served with the documents as required by Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subdivision (d).

However, Moving Counsel’s proofs of service do not indicate whether the forms were served on the opposing parties as required by Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subdivision (d). Unless counsel for Defendants waives or confirms service of the motions at the hearing, the motion must be continued to ensure proper notice is given.

The second issue is whether there is prejudice to the clients where Moving Counsel seeks to withdraw four months prior to the trial date of February 24, 2025.

Generally, there is “no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interest.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) “[T]he court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding. [citation] But the court’s discretion in this area, as elsewhere in the law, is one to be exercised reasonably.” (Mandell v. Superior Ct. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) Further, a “lawyer shall not terminate a representation until the lawyer has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client such as giving the client sufficient notice to permit the client to retain other counsel. . .” (Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16, subd. (d).)

Here, Moving Counsel seeks to be relieved due to “[i]rreconcilable differences and breakdown in communication”. Communication is a cornerstone and pillar of effective and competent representation. While the court has some concern regarding prejudice to the client, given that trial is set to begin approximately four months after this hearing the court concludes the prejudice is minimal. Further, any prejudice which may arise if Plaintiffs are unable to retain new counsel can be addressed closer to the trial date.

Defendant filed no opposition to the motions. Unless Defendant waives notice of the motions, the hearing on the motions will be reset.

At least five days prior to the next hearing moving party is directed to file proof of service of the moving papers upon Defendants.

Department 58