Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV18045, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.
Case Number: 23STCV18045 Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. HBO HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Date: March 12, 2025 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 |
MOVING
PARTY: Counsel Brad S. Kane (“Counsel”)
RESPONDING
PARTY: None
The Court has considered the moving
papers. No opposition has been filed.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an employment
relationship. On July 31, 2023, plaintiff Janet Van Ham (“Plaintiff”) filed
this action. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended
complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants HBO Home Entertainment, Inc. and Maher
Live, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging cause of action for: (1) whistleblower
retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (2) age, sex & gender
discrimination in violation of the Federal Housing & Employment Act
(“FEHA”); (3) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; and (4) retaliation in
violation of FEHA. On January 5, 2024, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer
to the third cause of action.
Trial is set for January 12, 2026.
On
February 10, 2025, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff (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:¿
¿
¿
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) and Proposed Order (MC-053) but has not filed a declaration on
the mandatory form (MC-052).
Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
for Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice.
If, however, Counsel files the form MC-052 before the date of the
hearing, the Court will consider granting the Motion.
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 12th day of March 2025
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Holly J.
Fujie Judge of the
Superior Court |