Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 21TRCV00788, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00788    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          August 30, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Attorneys Dariush G. Adli and Adli Law Group for defendants

Responding Party:                  None

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2021, plaintiff Armando Santiago filed a complaint against Command Security Systems, Inc., Arjun Singh Gill, Balbir Singh Gill, and Gautam Kumar for Labor Code violations, violation of Bus. and Prof. Code, and PAGA.  Plaintiff alleges that he worked for defendants from June 10, 2010 through March 31, 2021, as a Trailer Guard and sometimes as an Armed Guard.

            On November 12, 2021, plaintiff filed amendments to the complaint designating Deterrence Security System, Amarjeet Singh Gill, and Parminder K. Gill as Does 1, 2, and 3.

            Trial is scheduled for July 19, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398.

CRC Rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (“and must be made” on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

DISCUSSION

            Defendants’ attorneys of record Dariush G. Adli and Adli Law Group seek to be relieved as counsel.

            Counsel states that the relationship of trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client relationship has ceased to exist and irreconcilable differences have arisen between client and attorney making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. 

            The court finds that the notice of motion is deficient as it does not state the “name” of the client.  Further, if the motion is as to all the defendants, counsel does not state the address as to each client.  As to the declaration, counsel states as to the “name of party” “Command Security Systems, Inc., et al.” which is insufficient and improper.  As to whether counsel confirmed the “client’s last known address” “by mail, return receipt requested,” counsel has not presented the return receipt.  There is also no proof of service as to plaintiff’s counsel.  Further, as to the proof of service as to the defendants, do they share the same email address?

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.