Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV44489, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44489    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Plaintiff’s counsel, Larsen E. Ensberg (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Joe Miguel Alamo, Jr. (“Client”).  Counsel filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel on June 17, 2022.  On July 12, 2022, Client filed an objection to the instant motion to be relieved.  Counsel failed to comply with the California Rules of Court, (CRC, Rule 3.1362(d)) and failed to serve this motion on all other parties in the case prior to the initially hearing of July 18, 2022.  The Court continued the instant motion to July 29, 2022 to allow Counsel an opportunity to serve all other parties.  On July 19, 2022, Counsel filed proof of service of the instant motion on all parties and an amended order. 

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362.

Counsel served Client at Client’s last known mailing address, which Counsel states he has confirmed as current within 30 days of the motion by mailing to client all pleadings filed in this case and Client has acknowledge receipt of said documents.

Counsel states that there has become an irreparable breakdown in the attorney client relationship based on a lack of trust, billing/payment disagreements, and other accusations rendering counsel incapable of representing Client any further.

Opposition

As previously noted in the Court’s prior order, (Minute Order 7/18/22), and restated here, Client has filed an objection stating that Counsel was hired to get a reasonable payoff amount and if he could not get a reasonable payoff amount, Counsel was to go to court to have the Court decide the amount owed.  However, Client states that Counsel stated that the instant action would cost at most $10,000 and that Counsel has prolonged the instant action to charge Client more fees.  Client has already paid $18,000 and disputes additional billing by Counsel.  Accordingly, Client contends that Counsel should return half the money paid so that Client can hire another attorney. 

In Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, the Court of Appeal – in relevant part – concluded that there was “no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests.”  (Id. at p.915.)  Thus, absent undue prejudice to the client’s interest, the Court of Appeal concluded that the attorney had a right to withdraw representation without cause.  (Ibid.)

Similarly, in People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, the Court of Appeal noted that “[t]he question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ.Proc. s 284, subd. 2) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’ [Citations.]”  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)  In Prince, the Court of Appeal concluded that the grant of a motion to be relieved of a defense attorney in a criminal action was not an abuse of discretion where “the motion was timely made, before the case was set for trial, and there is no showing that the withdrawal prejudiced the defendant, the prosecution, or the smooth course of administration of justice.”  (Ibid.)

Here, in his opposition, Client disputes Counsel’s billing, which only serves to highlight the irreconcilable conflict that has arisen between Client and Counsel, which can only be exacerbated by Counsel’s continued representation of Client.  Notably, Client does not suggest any undue prejudice that would ensue from Counsel being relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.  In fact, Client asserts that Counsel has mismanaged the instant action causing Client prejudice, which suggests that Client believes that Counsel’s continued representation of Client could only result in greater prejudice.  Thus, the Court hereby finds that Counsel being relieved would not cause undue prejudice to Client.

Motion to be Relieved

Based on the notice of motion, the declaration filed by Counsel, and amended order the instant motion to be relieved is GRANTED.  The Order will be signed and filed, and Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Client, effective only upon Counsel’s filing of the proofs of service of the signed Order upon Client.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files proof of service of the signed order on all parties, including Client.

Counsel is ordered to serve copies of the instant order and the signed form MC-053 order on all parties, including Joe Miguel Alamo, Jr. and file proof of service of such within 3 days.

DATED: July 29, 2022                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court