Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00444, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00444    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 2, 2023                            TRIAL DATE:  

CASE:                         RAMON MIRAMONTES, an individual, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00444

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:               Richard E. Morton and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, counsel for Defendant

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed April 5, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Richard E. Morton (“Morton”) and Yvette Davis (“Davis”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Roman Miramontes’ claim that he experienced unlawful treatment during his employment with the Los Angeles Community College District. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 11, 2020, alleging eight causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to prevent harassment, (3) failure to engage in interactive process, (4) disparate impact, (5) work environment harassment, (6) retaliation, (7) breach of contract, and (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Morton and Davis’ motion to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant is GRANTED.

            The court will delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until (1) proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and (2) proof that the client has been properly served with notice of the next trial date have been filed with the court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §284(1) allows for a change or substitution of attorney “[u]pon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes.” If both parties do not consent to a substitution of attorney, Code of Civ. Proc. §284(2) allows for a substitution “[u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 sets forth procedures for relieving counsel without the mutual consent of both parties.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362, an attorney seeking to withdraw by motion rather than by consent of the client, as here, is required to make that motion using approved Judicial Council forms. The motion also requires 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(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1362(c).)  Judicial Council form MC-052, the attorney’s declaration, requires that the client be provided no less than five days’ notice before hearing on the motion.  A proposed order prepared on form MC-053 must also be lodged with the court with the moving papers.

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d) also requires that the motion, notice of motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice served on the client by mail must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts that show that either the service address is current or “that [t]he service address is 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.” (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 subd. (d)).

The Court of Appeals has recognized, “A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client [citation], or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case.  [Citation.]  We are, however, aware of no authority preventing an attorney from withdrawing from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

             Morton and Davis move to be relieved as counsel. They provide that there has been a breakdown in their relationship with their client making it unreasonable difficult to represent Defendant. They state that they have personally served Defendant with copies of the motion and declaration in support of the motion.

CONCLUSION

            Morton and Davis’ motion to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant is GRANTED.

            The court will delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until (1) proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client and (2) proof that the client has been properly served with notice of the new trial date of December 5, 2023, and new FSC date of November 30, 2023 have been filed with the court.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 1, 2023                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org