Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 21SMCV00775, Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00775    Hearing Date: October 7, 2022    Dept: 207

Background

This case arises from a dispute regarding payment for construction services performed on real property in Santa Monica, California. Jeffrey D. Horowitz, Esq., (“Counsel”) files the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant D.A. Construction, Inc., (“Plaintiff”). Counsel states there has been a breakdown in attorney-client communications and a breach of the attorney-client fee agreement.

Standard to be Relieved as Counsel

The Court may order 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. (C.C.P. § 284(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 Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC 3.1362(d).)

Analysis

The Court notes Counsel has filed all the required forms and the moving papers were served on Plaintiff (See Forms MC-052, Item No. 3; Proof of Service; Horowitz Decl.) Thus, the Court finds Counsel has satisfied the requirements of CRC 3.1362(a). The Court notes Plaintiff will have sufficient time to obtain new counsel before the trial on November 14, 2022.

Counsel declares he is seeking to be relieved as counsel due to a breach in the attorney-client fee agreement and because communication problems have arisen between Counsel and Plaintiff. The Court finds this explanation is sufficient to justify the relief sought by Counsel and accordingly the motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to CRC 3.1362(e), the Court will delay the effective date of the order relieving Counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on Plaintiff has been filed with the Court.

Conclusion

The motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant D.A. Construction, Inc. is GRANTED. Counsel is directed to serve a copy of the Court’s signed order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel on all parties which have appeared in this case as required by CRC 3.1362(e). The Court’s order granting Counsel’s motion will be deemed effective as of the date Counsel files a proof of service of a copy of this order on D.A. Construction, Inc.