Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV24926, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from breach of contract and open account claims, in which Plaintiff Romex Textiles, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, pursuant to agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants Adrian Leyva, Erica Leyva, Juan Alberto Balbuena, Ori Textiles, Inc., Fernando Carmona and Omar Perez (collectively “Defendants”), Defendants owe Plaintiff a principal balance of $236,980.89. Plaintiff filed the operative complaint (the “Complaint”) on October 12, 2023 alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contracts; (2) open account; (3) account stated; (4) goods sold and delivered (quantum valebant); (5) conversion; (6) claim and delivery; (7) breach of contracts; (8) open account; (9) account stated; (10) goods sold and delivered (quantum valebant); (11) conversion; (12) claim and delivery; (13) breach of contracts; (14) open account; (15) account stated; (16) goods sold and delivered (quantum valebant); (17) conversion; (18) claim and delivery; (19) breach of contracts; (20) open account; (21) account stated; (22) goods sold and delivered (quantum valebant); (23) conversion; (24) claim and delivery; (25) open account; (26) account stated; and (27) unjust enrichment-constructive trust.

On November 14, 2024, Counsel John W. Bussman (“Bussman”) filed three motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants Adrian Levya, Erica Leyva and Ori Textiles, Inc. (collectively, 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.)

Bussman filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051), Declaration in Support of Motion (MC-052) and Proposed Order (MC-053) for all three clients. As reason for the Motions, Bussman states: “A conflict has arisen that precludes further representation and requires counsel to withdraw. Counsel requests an in-camera hearing if the court needs more information.” (All MC-052, ¶ 2.) The forms were served on the respective clients and Plaintiff via mail on November 14, 2024. (All MC-051, Proof of Service) Bussman was unable to confirm that the addresses are current after mailing the motion papers to the clients last known address, calling the clients’ last known telephone number, and attempting to contact them through their last known email address. (All MC-052, ¶ 3(b)(2).) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as trial is currently set for May 4, 2026. Thus, the Court finds that the Motions set forth an adequate basis for withdrawal.

John W. Bussman’s Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for Adrian Levya, Erica Leyva and Ori Textiles, Inc. 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