Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV18387, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18387    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiffs allege that he was subjected to sexual and racial harassment while working for Defendant, and suffered retaliation for complaining, including termination.

Attorneys Thomas Daugherty and Imbar Sagi-Lebowitz move to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Avartara LLC, Lisa Walker and Patti Jackson.

TENTATIVE RULING

Attorneys Thomas Daugherty and Imbar Sagi-Lebowitz’s motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Avartara LLC, Lisa Walker and Patti Jackson are GRANTED, with counsel to be relieved effective upon  counsel filing proof of service of the signed order granting the motions upon the clients.

     Since a limited liability company can only appear through a licensed attorney, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why Defendant Avartara LLC's answer should not be stricken, and its default entered, for failure to appear through licensed attorney.  The OSC will be heard at 8:30 a.m. on May 12, 2025 in Department 76.  If Defendant Avartara LLC does not appear through counsel at that time, the Court intends to strike its answer and enter its default, unless good cause is shown.

     The March 17, 2025 Case Management Conference is continued to May 12, 2025 at 8:30.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel

Attorneys Thomas Daugherty and Imbar Sagi-Lebowitz move to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Avartara LLC, Lisa Walker and Patti Jackson.

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 withdrawal 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.)

All mandatory Judicial Council forms have been filled out and submitted 

There has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and counsel cannot proceed with representation. (Declarations, ¶ 2.) This is sufficient cause to permit the requested withdrawal as counsel of record.

As there is currently no trial date set, this gives the entity client to locate new counsel, as it must do because an entity may represent itself pro per. The individual clients may proceed as self-represented litigants, but are advised to locate new counsel.

As such, the motions to be relieved as counsel are GRANTED. The order shall not become effective until the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.