Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00147, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00147    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Counsel Gavril Gabriel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon [see below]. (A proposed order has been filed.)

Background

This is a wrongful termination case.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Jorge Sanchez filed suit against Defendant PROTERRA OPERATING COMPANY, INC.; PROTERRA, INC. (collectively, “Proterra”); RIKKI RODRIGUEZ; and NICK MARQUEZ for:

(1)   DISABILITY/PERCEIVED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION;

(2)   ASSOCIATION-BASED DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (Gov. Code, § 12926(o))]

(3)   WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT (Gov. Code, § 12940(j))

(4)   RETALIATION (Gov. Code, § 12940(h))

(5)   FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

(6)   RETALIATION [Labor Code, §§ 98.6, 1102.5, 6310]

(7)   FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (Gov. Code, § 12940(m))

(8)   FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH INTERACTIVE PROCESS (Gov. Code, § 12940(n))

(9)   UNFAIR AND UNLAWFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES; and WRONGFUL TERMINATION [In Violation of Public Policy].

On January 26, 2024, Proterra filed a ‘SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY AND NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR PROTERRA OPERATING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.’

On July 24, 204, the court held a non-appearance case review re: bankruptcy. The minute order provides, in relevant part, “Defendants Marquez and Rodriguez are advised of the next court date, and are admonished that the Court cannot give legal advice as to how to proceed. The case remains stayed.”

On October 23, 2024, the court held an ‘Order to Show Cause Re: Why the Plaintiff is Continuing to File Documents on a Stayed Matter/ Why Plaintiff did not Update the Court on Status of Bankruptcy on July 24, 2024.’ The minute order provides, in relevant part, “Counsel for plaintiff requests from the Court the stay be lifted for Defendants Rikki Rodriguez and Nick Marquez, who have been served and can participate in the litigation of the case. The relevant Proofs of Service for the individual defendants have been filed with the Court… The Court ordered the Stay of the Bankruptcy is to remain pending the outcome of Bankruptcy Court proceedings.”

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney Gavril T. Gabriel filed the instant motion.

Discussion

Counsel Gabriel seeks to be relieved as counsel because of a breakdown in communication between Counsel and Plaintiff. More specifically, Counsel explains that the Plaintiff has not been returning Counsel’s emails or phone calls despite several attempts at communication.

Here, the court finds good cause in granting the motion, especially as the case is stayed due to bankruptcy proceedings such that Plaintiff does not need imminent representation. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915 [The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice; see also People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398 [same].)

The only defect the court notes is that Plaintiff did not serve the individual defendants with notice of this motion; The POS indicates that only Counsel for Proterra and Plaintiff were served.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, effective upon (1) serving individual Defendants Rikki Rodriguez and Nick Marquez with notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel (along with the various forms) and (2) the filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to Plaintiff, Defendants, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.