Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV02850, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 24CHCV02850    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed: 1/9/25

MOVING PARTY: Counsel Yadira De La Rosa and Kordab Law Offices for Plaintiff Erick Guevara

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Yadira De La Rosa, Kordab Law Offices as counsel of record for Plaintiff Erick Guevara

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful termination case.

On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff Erick Guevara (“Plaintiff” or “Guevara”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Roth Staffing Companies LP (“Roth Staffing”), Metal Improvement Company, LLC (“MIC”, erroneously sued as E/M Coating Services), Surface Technologies, Curtiss-Wright Controls Electronic Systems (“Curtiss-Wright”), Hugo Quintano (“Quintano”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 25. The Complaint alleges the following 6 causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) sexual harassment in violation of California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) hostile work environment in violation (Gov. Code, § 12940, et seq.), and (6) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation (Gov. Code, § 12940, et seq.). On September 25, 2024, Defendants MIC and Curtis-Wright filed their joint Answer to the Complaint. On November 13, 2024, Defendant Roth Staffing filed its Answer.

On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel, Yadira De La Rosa and Kordab Law Offices, (“Counsel”), filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to Plaintiff (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (e).)

In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subsection (d) requires that the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal service, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

            (A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or

(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

            (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(1).)

Here, Counsel has filed Judicial Council Forms MC-051 and MC-052. Counsel has also lodged Judicial Council Form MC-053 with the Court.

Counsel states that the Motion is necessitated by the fact that “[t]he working relationship between client and counsel has broken down and client has refused to engage in the discovery process.” (MC-052 ¶ 2.) Additionally, Counsel declares that “client has not complied, in substantial part, with the attorney-client agreement entered into[.]” (MC-052 ¶ 2.)

The Court finds Counsel’s reasons for seeking relief to be adequate.

Moreover, Counsel states in the declaration that the Motion was served by mail at Plaintiff’s last known address. (MC-052 ¶ 3a(2).) Additionally, Counsel declares that Plaintiff’s last known address has been confirmed within the last 30 days as current “by conversation.” (MC-052 ¶ 3b(1)(a).)

A jury trial is not yet set in this case. (MC-052 ¶ 6(a); MC-053 ¶ 9(a).) The next scheduled hearing in this case is a Case Management Conference set for May 30, 2025. (MC-052 ¶ 4b; MC-053 ¶ 7(a).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Yadira De La Rosa and Kordab Law Offices for Plaintiff Erick Guevara, is GRANTED.

Moving counsel to give notice.