Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC03205 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03205, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03205 Hearing Date: February 21, 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 14, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 14, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Dominique Nicole Knox (“Knox”) and Delano Daniels (“Daniels”) filed an action against Planet Cars, Inc. dba Cash or Finance Auto (“Planet Cars”) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), (collectively “Defendants”), 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, and (3) Claim Against Surety.

On August 31, 2021, Defendants filed a Stipulation to Stay Action and Proceed to Arbitration, signed by all parties, which was granted by the Court on the same day. (8-31-21 Stipulation and Order.) The Court set a Post-Arbitration Review hearing for March 7, 2022. (Ibid.) On March 7, 2022, the Post-Arbitration Status Conference was continued to April 18, 2022. (3-7-22 Minute Order.) The Conference was again continued to October 18, 2022. (4-18-22 Minute Order.)

On August 18, 2022, James S. Sifers/Madison Law, APC, counsel for Defendant Planet Cars, filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

On November 21, 2022, Counsel Sifers/Madison Law, APC, filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion.

On September 28, 2022, the Court continued the Post-Arbitration Status Conference to November 30, 2022. (9-28-22 Minute Order.)

On November 30, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the instant Motion as Counsel had not served the moving papers on all Defendants in the case. (11-30-22 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that arbitration was held on November 3, 2022. (Ibid.)

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, scheduled for hearing on March 30, 2023.

On January 9, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the instant Motion one final time to allow Counsel Sifers an opportunity to file proof of serving all parties with the moving papers. (1-9-23 Minute Order.)

On January 30, 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. (1-30-23 Jugan Decl. ¶ 8, pp. 4-5.)

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.) 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 on August 18, 2022, at its last known address, which Counsel confirmed by conversation within the past 30 days. (MC-052 ¶ 3.) Counsel also served the documents on the Plaintiff.

On November 30, 2022, the Court noted that there was no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings and Counsel had satisfied most of the procedural requirements for filing the Motion. (11-30-22 Minute Order.) However, given that Counsel had not served all Defendants, the Court continued the hearing to allow Counsel Sifers to serve the moving papers on Defendant Nationwide. (Ibid.) The Court added that no additional papers had been filed and again continued the hearing on the Motion on January 9, 2023. (1-9-23 Minute Order.)

The Court finds that all procedural requirements have been satisfied and GRANTS the Motion.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.