Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV27179, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

This action arises out of a landlord-tenant relationship. On August 22, 2022, plaintiffs William Green and Denise Drissel (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against defendants Dolly Hwang, Guochang International, Inc., and Does 1 through 10 alleging cause of action for: (1) breach of contract/covenant of quiet enjoyment/warranty of habitability; (2) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; (4) private nuisance; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (6) fraud; (7) violation of unfair business practices; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) elder abuse; and (10) tenant harassment.

On February 4, 2025, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff William Green (“Green”) and a motion to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Denise Drissel (“Drissel”), (the “Motions”). The Motions are unopposed.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”¿ (CCP § 284; California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 3.1362.)¿ The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably.¿ (Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)¿

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.¿ The motion must be made using mandatory forms:¿

The forms must be timely filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case.¿ (CRC rule 3.1362.)¿ If these documents are served on the client by mail, there must be a declaration stating either that the address where client was served is “the current residence or business address of the client” or “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.”¿ (CRC rule 3.1362 subd. (d)(1).)¿

The court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Withdrawal is generally permitted unless there is a compelling reason to continue the representation. (Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461, 462.)

Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053) for both clients. As reason for the Motions, Counsel states: “There has been a breakdown in the working relationship with the client. The specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to Business and Professions code §6068(e), rule 3-100(A), a California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid, C., §§950 et seq.) In the event that this court desires further information to ascertain the good faith basis for this motion and for withdrawal, it is respectfully requested that the court have an in camera hearing outside of the presence of all other parties so that the specific facts demonstrating good cause of this withdrawal may be demonstrated to the court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998)66 Cal.App.4th 1128; 1136-1137; 3-700(B) or (C).)” (Both MC-052, ¶ 2.)

The forms were served on the respective clients and Defendants via first-class mail on February 4, 2025. (Both POS-040.) Counsel confirmed by telephone that the addresses are current. (Both MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1).) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as the trial in this matter has been continued. Thus, the Court finds that the Motions set forth an adequate basis for withdrawal.

Daniel J. Lavi’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for William Green and Denise Drissel are GRANTED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court