Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV18003, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18003    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Novian & Novian LLP, Farhoud Novian and Lindsey Phipps (“Counsel”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

             This action arises from an employment relationship. On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff Kristine Baldwin (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative complaint (“Complaint”) against defendant LuxUrban Hotels, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay wages due [Labor Code §§ 204, 210, 510, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1]; (2) failure to reimburse business expenses [Labor code § 2802]; (3) failure to provide rest and meal periods [Labor code §§226.7, 512]; (4) failure to provide rest day [Labor Code §§ 551, 552); (5) waiting time penalties [Labor Code §§201-203); (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements [Labor Code § 226(a)]; (7) unfair business practices (Business & Professions code §§17200, et seq.); (8) conversion; and (9) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy.

            On December 12, 2024, Farhoud Novian and Lindsey Phipps of Novian & Novian LLP filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

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:¿ 

¿ 

1. Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client (MC-051);¿ 

2. Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” the reasons that the motion was brought (MC-052);¿and 

3. Proposed Order (MC-053).¿ 

¿ 

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 filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053). As reason for the Motion, Counsel states “Due to a breakdown in attorney-client communications, it has become unreasonably difficult for NOVIAN & NOVIAN LLP ("NNLLP") and its attorneys to carry out the representation effectively. NNLLP has exhausted its options for establishing effective communications with the client and believes that an effective attorney-client relationship has ceased to exist. NNLLP has lost confidence that it will have sufficient communications with Client to represent Client in this matter. So as to protect the attorney-client privilege and additional privacy protections for the client, NNLLP can only supplement the supporting declaration with in camera oral representations of counsel in chambers and wishes to do so.” (MC-052, ¶ 2.) The forms were served on the client and Plaintiff via e-service and mail on December 12, 2024. (MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053, Proofs of Service) Counsel confirmed that the address was current by “checking the California Secretary of State website for current mailing and entity address of Client.” (MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(1)(d)) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as there are no other hearings currently scheduled in this action and trial is not yet set. Thus, the Court finds that the Motion sets forth an adequate basis for withdrawal. 

Novian & Novian LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for LuxUrban Hotels, Inc. is GRANTED. Because Defendant is a corporation, it cannot represent itself in this case.  The Court therefore sets an Order to Show Cause re Representation for January 30, 2025 at 8:30 am to discuss Defendant’s retention of counsel. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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.

Dated this 13th day of January 2025