Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV26947, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26947    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 14

Anderson vs. Looptify

Case Background

Commercial Unlawful Detainer.

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed its form Complaint in Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Looptify, Inc. (“Looptify”) and DOES 1-20.

On November 8, 2023, Defendant Looptify filed its Answer.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.

Instant Motion

Attorney Kenneth G. Ruttenberg (“Ruttenberg”) now seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Looptify.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED, without prejudice.

Governing Rule

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 requires that counsel fill out forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. These forms serve two basic functions: (1) ensuring that notice is given to the client and (2) providing the court with an adequate explanation of why the matter is being handled via motion rather than mutual consent. See Code of Civil Procedure § 284; California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362.

Discussion

            Counsel Ruttenberg has completed the required forms. Those forms indicate that the client has been personally served with the moving papers.

            Counsel Ruttenberg indicates that he wishes to withdraw because the client would not agree to relieve him.

            This explanation is not sufficient. California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16 contains the permissible reasons for ending a representation. The client’s desire that the representation continue is not on that list.

Conclusion

            Because there is no adequate explanation of the reason for withdrawal, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice.