Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 19STCV28803, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Evelyn Cristina Rivas Gonzalez, et al. vs. 7934 Laurel Canyon Blvd, LLC, et al.; 19STCV28803

Moving Party: Counsel for Defendant Geeta Mehta

Opposing Parties: Defendant Geeta Mehta, as Executor for the Estate of Anil Mehta

Thomas H. Citron of Citron & Citron, counsel of record for Defendant Geeta Mehta (Defendant), seeks to be relieved as counsel for this party. Counsel filed a motion with the required Forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Counsel’s declaration states that there has been a breakdown of all communication between the Defendant and Counsel, making it impossible for Counsel to effectively represent Defendant. The declaration also states that Defendant has refused to comply with the terms of the agreement with Defense Counsel by failing to pay attorney fees and the costs of experts. Counsel indicates that because of this, he does not have the funds necessary to complete discovery and/or defend the case at trial.

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Counsel’s motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 and meets its requirements.

Some of the confusion regarding this motion is the product of the fact that the attorney was retained by Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc. to represent all defendants, and communications were not with each and every defendant separately, but rather handled through a coordinated system managed by Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc. Thus, when the relationship broke down, it inherently broke down as to all defendants and their attorney.

Defendant initially opposed the motion on the basis that Counsel had filed the motion in too close of proximity to the hearing date. The Court granted Defendant’s ex parte motion to continue the hearing on this basis, and the Court allow Defendant to file a supplemental opposition regarding the merits of Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

Defendant argues in the supplemental opposition that her Counsel’s motion should be denied because it does not accurately relay the facts. Defendant represents that even though Citron & Citron were retained as her counsel, no one from the firm ever communicated with Defendant or told her that she failed to communicate with them, and she never received an invoice from them. She omits the fact that her communications were being handled by another defendant, obviously with her acquiescence. She omits the fact that apparently she was not handling the payment for attorney services.

Counsel represents in his supplemental reply that his firm was retained on Defendant’s behalf by Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc., which agreed to pay the fees on behalf of Defendant and handle communications on her behalf because Defendant is a senior citizen who is blind and widowed. (Citron Decl., ¶ 3.) Because Counsel’s communications with J.K. had broken down, so too had its communications with Defendant. Further, Counsel argues that Defendant will not be prejudiced, as trial is not set until May 28, 2024, and that gives Defendant over 5 months to find new counsel.

Because there were never any communications between Defendant and Citron & Citron, it is unclear to the Court why she opposes the motion to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, Citron & Citron appears to have been chosen for her by J.K. Residential Services. While she was legally represented by Citron & Citron, she has established no relationship with that firm, and presumably can now establish a relationship with whomever she chooses.

Thomas H. Citron’s motion to be relieved as counsel of Defendant Geeta Mehta is GRANTED.