Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02711, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STLC02711 Hearing Date: February 15, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
MOVING PARTY: Counsel
James S. Sifers/Madison Law, APC, for Defendant Planet Cars, Inc.
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
(CCP § 284, CRC rule 3.162)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Counsel James S. Sifers’s Motion to
Be Relieved as Counsel as to Defendant Planet Cars, Inc. is GRANTED and the
Order will be signed at the hearing.
“After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on
the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on
this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the
signed order on the client has been filed with the court.” (Ibid.)
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,
rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct
Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court
Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None
filed as of February 8, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None
filed as of February 8, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On March 23, 2020, Plaintiffs
Robert Herod (“Robert”) and Rochelle L. Herod (“Rochelle”) filed an action
against Planet Cars, Inc. d/b/a Cash or Finance Auto (“Planet Cars”), M&N Financing
Corporation (“M&N”), and International Fidelity Insurance Company
(“International Fidelity”) for (1) violation of Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq., (2) violation of California Business and
Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices, (3) Negligent
Misrepresentation, (4) Claim Against Surety, and (5) Violation of Code of Civil
Procedure § 1281.97 & 1281.99.
On June 1, 2020, Defendant Planet
Cars filed an Answer to the Complaint. On
August 7, 2020, Defendant International Fidelity filed an Answer to the
Complaint.
On October 22, 2020, the Court
placed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed on April 2, 2020, off
calendar, due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file a corrected proof of service. (10-22-20 Minute Order.)
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs
filed another Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick
Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, Request for Sanctions, and Request for
Costs. On June 21, 2021, the Court
granted Plaintiffs’ Motion and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration in
front of the AAA. (6-21-21 Minute
Order.) The Court denied costs and
sanctions. (Ibid.)
On August 18, 2022, James S.
Sifers/Madison Law, APC, (“Sifers”), counsel for Defendant Planet Cars, filed
the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed. The Court notes that Counsel Sifers/Madison
Law, APC, also represents Defendant International Fidelity in the instant
action. (See 8-7-20 Answer.)
On November 17, 2022, Counsel
Sifers/Madison Law, APC, filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion.
On November 28, 2022, the Court
continued the hearing on the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to allow Counsel Sifers
additional time to serve Defendants International Fidelity and M&N. (11-28-22 Minute Order.) On the same day, Counsel Sifers served a
Notice of Continued Hearing on Plaintiffs and Defendant Planet Cars. (11-28-22 Notice of Continuance.)
On November 29, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.
On December 7, 2022, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Nima Heydari filed a
Declaration Relating to Arbitration Status Conference and indicated that the
Arbitrator had granted Counsel Sifers’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to
Defendant Planet Cars in the context of arbitration. (12-7-22 Heydari Decl.)
On December 14, 2022, Counsel
Sifers filed Proof of Service indicating that the Notice of Continued Hearing
had been served on the Plaintiffs and all Defendants. (12-14-22 Notice of Continuance.) On the same day, Counsel submitted the
Declaration of Alexis A. Jugan requesting additional time to serve all
Defendants with the moving papers.
Accordingly, the Court again continued the hearing. (12-28-22 Minute Order.)
On January 23, 2023, Counsel filed
Proof of Service, indicating that the moving papers, along with a Notice of
Continued Hearing, had been served on all Plaintiffs and Defendants. (1-23-23 Jugan Decl. ¶ 8.)
No opposition has been filed.
II.
Legal
Standard
Code of
Civil Procedure § 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 284; 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. (See 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:
1.
Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
directed to the client – (MC-051);
2.
Declaration “stating in general terms and without
compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” the
reasons that the motion was brought (MC-052);
3.
Proposed Order (MC-053).
(Ibid.) The
forms must be timely filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the
case. (Ibid.) 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1362(d)(1).)
III.
Discussion
On August 18, 2022, Counsel James S.
Sifers/Madison Law, APC (“Sifers”) moved the Court to relieve him as attorney
of record for Defendant Planet Cars.
(Mot. – MC-051.) The Court
notes that Counsel Sifers/Madison Law, APC, also represents Defendant
International Fidelity in the instant action; however, the instant motion is
regarding his representation of Defendant Planet Cars. (Ibid.; See 8-7-20 Answer.)
Counsel properly filed a Notice of
Motion and Motion (MC-051). Counsel also
filed a Declaration in Support of the Motion (MC-052) stating that:
A
conflict has arisen between attorney, James S. Sifers and Madison Law, APC
("Attorney"), and client, Defendant Planet Cars, Inc. dba Cash or
Finance Auto ("Client"), that has resulted in the breakdown of the
attorney-client relationship, and such that Attorney does not believe that it
can continue to represent Client in this matter. There exists a breakdown in
communication between Attorney and Client such that Attorney does not believe
it can adequately represent Client in this matter such that Client would be
prejudiced should he be forced to litigate with current Attorney. Attorney
believes that it is in Client's best interest to obtain alternative counsel so
as to avoid this conflict and the resulting prejudice. Due to constraints of
the attorney-client privilege, Attorney is unable to disclose any further
details about the conflict and the need to withdraw.
(MC-052, ¶ 2.) Counsel
has also filed a Proposed Order, Form MC-053.
All documents were served on Defendant
Planet Cars on August 18, 2022, at its last known address, which Counsel
confirmed by conversation within the past 30 days. (MC-052 ¶ 3.)
Counsel has also served the documents on the Plaintiffs.
On November 28, 2022, the Court found
that there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay
in the proceedings. (11-28-22 Minute
Order.) The Court also found that
Counsel satisfied most of the procedural requirements for filing the
Motion. (Ibid.) However, given that Counsel has not served
all Defendants, the Court continued the hearing to allow Counsel Sifers to
serve the moving papers on all Defendants.
(Ibid.)
On December 14, 2022, Counsel
Sifers filed Proof of Service indicating that the Notice of Continued Hearing
had been served on the Plaintiffs and all Defendants. (12-14-22 Notice of Continuance.) On the same day, Counsel submitted the
Declaration of Alexis A. Jugan requesting that the Court continue the hearing
to allow additional time to serve all Defendants with the instant Motion. (12-14-22 Jugan Decl. ¶ 7.)
Accordingly, the Court again continued the hearing on the Motion. (12-28-22 Minute Order.)
On January 23, 2023, Counsel filed
Proof of Service, indicating that the moving papers, along with a Notice of
Continued Hearing, had been served on all parties. (1-23-23 Jugan Decl. ¶ 8.)
The Court
finds that all procedural requirements have been satisfied and GRANTS the
Motion.
IV.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Counsel James S. Sifers’s Motion to
Be Relieved as Counsel as to Defendant Planet Cars, Inc. is GRANTED and the
Order will be signed at the hearing.
“After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on
the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on
this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the
signed order on the client has been filed with the court.” (Ibid.)
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.