Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV25666, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Counsel David S. Alverson and Lisa R. Patel, Lesnick Prince Pappas & Alverson LLP (“Counsel”)

This is a breach of contract action arising out of a business relationship. On October 20, 2023, Tom of Finland Foundation, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against CultureEDIT, LLC (“CultureEDIT”), Joakim Andreasson (“Andreasson”), and Does 1-35, inclusive. The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of duty of loyalty; (3) tortious interference with contract; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) unfair competition in violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (6) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) conversion; and (8) an accounting.

On March 27, 2025, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for CultureEDIT and a motion to be relieved as counsel for Andreasson (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: “Over the course of the representation, significant, fundamental, and irreconcilable differences have arisen that have culminated in an irreparable breakdown in trust and in the attorney-client relationship, including relating to advice, strategy, case handling and communications. These irreconcilable differences are preventing us from effectively representing Culture Edit and Andreasson in this case. Culture Edit’s and Andreasson’s conduct has made it unreasonably difficult for us to continue in this case.” (Both MC-052, ¶ 2, Attach. 2.)

The forms were served on the respective clients and Plaintiff via electronic mail on March 27, 2025. (Both POS-040.) Counsel confirmed the addresses are current within the past 30 days. (Both MC-052, ¶ 3(b).) Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings as trial in this matter has not yet been set. Thus, the Court finds that the Motions set forth an adequate basis for withdrawal.

Counsel David S. Alverson and Lisa R. Patel, Lesnick Prince Pappas & Alverson LLP Motions to be Relieved as Counsel for CultureEDIT, LLC and Joakim Andreasson are GRANTED. Because CultureEDIT, LLC is a corporation, it cannot represent itself in this case. The Court therefore sets an Order to Show Cause re Representation for May 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM to discuss CultureEDIT, LLC’s retention of counsel.

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