Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 21STCV40707, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff Catina Rush (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for employment related matters against Defendants South East Employee Leasing Services, Inc., World Private Security, Inc., and Daniel Prieto.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. of Lipeles Law Group, APC (“Counsel”) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition was filed. Counsel filed additional proposed orders on March 28, 2023 and May 1, 2023.

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (CCP § 284(2).) The attorney seeking to withdraw must take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, 3- 700(A)(2). See, e.g., Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192 [holding withdrawal prejudicial where attorney withdraw from the representation of defendant on the Friday before trial began the following Monday].) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.)

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (CRC 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (CRC, 3.1362(d).) When a client is served by mail, the attorney’s declaration must indicate that the client’s address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.) If the attorney is unable to confirm the client’s current address, the declaration must state the reasonable efforts made within the last 30 days to obtain the client’s current address. (Id.)

Additionally, the declaration “must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney client relationship why” a motion is brought instead of filing a substitution of attorney. (CRC, 3.1362(c).)

The Court finds that Counsel has submitted all the mandatory forms. Counsel states that the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated. (MC-052 (Declaration), § 2.) Counsels’ declaration correctly provides that the next hearing scheduled in this action concerns a Final Status Conference set for August 29, 2023. (MC-052 (Declaration), § 5.) Counsels’ declaration also correctly states that trial in this action is set for September 12, 2023. (MC-052 (Declaration), § 6.) Counsel confirmed Plaintiff’s address within the past 30 days by telephone conversation. (Id., § 3(b)(1)(b).)

However, the Court notes that there are inconsistencies regarding the address for Plaintiff in connection with service of this motion and related documents. The forms filed on February 15, 2023, plus the proof of service filed on February 16, 2023, indicate Plaintiff’s address as being 342 Dale St., Apt. 33, Perris, CA 92571, but the subsequent proposed orders filed on March 28, 2023 and May 1, 2023 indicate an address of 342 Dale St., Perris, CA 92571, i.e., without the apartment number. The proofs of service filed on March 28, 2023 and May 1, 2023 regarding those proposed orders indicate that Counsel served Plaintiff at the address containing the apartment number.