Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV30809, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30809    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

TENTATIVE RULING

Attorney Charlie Acevedo’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Sincerity, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of Central Glendale is GRANTED. This order shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the clients. 

The Court sets an OSC why the Court should not (1) strike the answer of entity Defendant Sincerity, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of Central Glendale and (2) enter its default for failure to appear through counsel for March 13, at 8:30 a.m.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel

Discussion

Attorney Charlie Acevedo moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Sincerity, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of Central Glendale.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 requires that the following Mandatory Judicial Council forms be filed for a motion to be relieved as counsel: Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-051); Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052); and Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053). (See Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).)  These three forms must be served on must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Calif. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d).)

The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) An attorney may withdraw with or without cause as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client's interest - i.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation because that would prejudice client, but can withdraw otherwise.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) The court has discretion to deny an attorney’s request to withdraw where such withdraw would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding; but the court’s discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) 

The mandatory judicial council forms have been properly filled-out and submitted.

There has been a breakdown in communication with the clients, which result in a conflict of interest in connection with the attorney’s continued representation of the client. (Declarations, ¶ 2.)

There is currently no trial date set, which gives the client an opportunity to locate new counsel, which the entity client must do, as it cannot represent itself. 

Here, permitting withdrawal of counsel is appropriate, as counsel need not represent the client if it the relationship has broken down to the point that representation is no longer feasible.

The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. This order shall become effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the clients.

The Court sets an OSC why the Court should not (1) strike the answer of entity Defendant Sincerity, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of Central Glendale and (2) enter its default for failure to appear through counsel for March 13, at 8:30 a.m.