Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV44944 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

The Court's Ruling and Attorney's relief as Counsel of
record for client is not effective until Proof of Service of the Order signed
by the Court upon the client is filed in this action. Until then, counsel continues to be counsel
of record. Cal. Rules of Court
3.1362(e).

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December 2017. Plaintiff Joaquin Rodriguez Carmona filed his Complaint against Defendants Christina M. Rohrer, Laszlo Enterprises Inc., Laszlo Enterprises, Inc. dba Patty Wagon Charter, and Patty Wagon Charter on December 16, 2019.

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. (2)) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].) The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdivant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).

Counsel filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), an Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053), and a Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-052) on the appropriate forms, as outlined within California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (e).)

On January 4, 2023, the Court denied counsel’s first motion to be relieved as counsel on the grounds that Plaintiff would be prejudiced if counsel is allowed to withdraw. Plaintiff was defaulted on a cross-complaint filed by Laszlo Enterprises, Inc. despite the fact that Plaintiff was represented by counsel.

Counsel now testifies that Plaintiff misrepresented to counsel that he had insurance and lied during his deposition. (Khalil Decl., ¶3.) When Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint, counsel informed Plaintiff and advised him to notify his insurance carrier. (Id., ¶5.) Plaintiff then informed counsel he was merely seeking free medical treatment. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff agreed to accept a 998 settlement offer and admitted the accident was his fault and that he had not been forthright with the parties in this case. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff admitted he did not have insurance and that he had taken his wife’s car without her permission before the subject collision. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiff then failed to sign the settlement agreement and did not respond to counsel’s attempts to contact him. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff then attempted to retain new counsel, who refused to take his case because Plaintiff is only seeking free medical treatment. (Id., ¶9.) Plaintiff agreed to allow counsel to withdraw and then failed to sign a voluntary release. (Id., ¶10.) At the hearing on January 4, 2023, Plaintiff accused counsel of lying about Plaintiff’s intention to sign the release. (Id., ¶11.)

Plaintiff is still in default and allowing counsel to withdraw at this stage would still result in injustice. However, it appears Plaintiff may be advancing his claim based on grounds that are not warranted or cannot be supported by good faith argument. Additionally, it appears that counsel may have revealed Plaintiff’s confidential information and is potentially in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068 and the California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.6. In light of this potential breach of Plaintiff’s confidential information and the disagreements between Plaintiff and counsel, the Court finds that counsel’s continued representation of Plaintiff would result in prejudice to Plaintiff.