Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08581 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08581, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08581 Hearing Date: August 15, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Defendants’ Counsel, Jonathan Rubinfeld

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284, CRC rule 3.162)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel Jonathan Rubinfeld’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel as to (1) Defendant PFA, (2) Defendant Colossal, and (3) Defendant Rates 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 Defendant has been filed with the court.” (Ibid.)

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) YES

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) YES

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) YES

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 10, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of August 10, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Plaintiff’ or “Westlake”) filed an action against PFA Autos Inc. dba Professional Auto Sales (“PFA”), Colossal, Inc. dba Professional Auto Sales (“Colossal”), and Jordan Maurice Rates aka Jordan M. Rates aka Jordan Rates (“Rates”) (collectively “Defendants”) for 1) open book account, 2) account stated, 3) reasonable value, 4) breach of contract, and 5) breach of guarantee. On January 24, 2022, Defendants, collectively, filed an Answer, denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On May 19, 2022, Counsel for Defendants, Jonathan Rubinfeld, filed three Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for (1) Defendant PFA, (2) Defendant Colossal, and (3) Defendant Rates.

No oppositions were 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

A. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant PFA

On May 19, 2022, Counsel Jonathan Rubinfeld moved the Court to relieve him as attorney of record for Defendant PFA. (Mot. (MC-051) - PFA.) Rubinfeld has properly filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051) and Declaration (MC-052) stating that the Motion is due to “irreconcilable differences and communication failures which would lead to ineffective representation.” (Rubinfeld Decl., MC-052, p. 1.) Counsel has asked Defendant PFA to sign a substitution of attorney, but Defendant PFA has declined. (Ibid. at pp. 1, 4; Ex. A.) Counsel has served Defendant PFA at the last known address of its agent for Service of Process, Jordan Rates, at 1084 Sly Fox Run, Fairburn, GA 30213, and has made attempts to confirm the address by mail, phone, and electronic mail. (Ibid. at pp. 2-3; Ex. A.) Counsel adds that alternatively, the Motion should be granted because he was “retained under a limited scope representation and has made significant efforts to notify Defendants by phone and email of the pending Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel.” (Ibid. at p. 2; Ex. A.) Counsel has also filed a Proposed Order (MC-053.) All documents have been timely filed with the Court and served on all the parties in the case. (Mot. (MC-051) – Rates, pp. 4-5.)

Given that Counsel Rubinfeld has satisfied all procedural requirements for filing the Motion and because there is no showing that withdrawal would cause injustice or undue delay in the proceedings, the Court GRANTS Counsel Rubinfeld’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant PFA.

B. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Colossal

On May 19, 2022, Counsel Jonathan Rubinfeld moved the Court to relieve him as attorney of record for Defendant Colossal. (Mot. (MC-051) - Colossal.) Rubinfeld has properly filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051) and Declaration (MC-052) stating that the Motion is due to “irreconcilable differences and communication failures which would lead to ineffective representation.” (Rubinfeld Decl., MC-052, p. 1.) Counsel has asked Defendant to sign a substitution of attorney, but Defendant Colossal has declined. (Ibid. at pp. 1, 4; Ex. A.) Counsel has served Defendant Colossal at the last known address of its agent for Service of Process, Jordan Rates, at 1084 Sly Fox Run, Fairburn, GA 30213, and has made attempts to confirm the address by mail, phone, and electronic mail. (Ibid. at pp. 2-3; Ex. A.) Counsel adds that alternatively, the Motion should be granted because he was “retained under a limited scope representation and has made significant efforts to notify Defendants by phone and email of the pending Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel.” (Ibid. at p. 2; Ex. A.) Counsel has also filed a Proposed Order (MC-053.) All documents have been timely filed with the Court and served on all the parties in the case. (Mot. (MC-051) – Colossal, pp. 4-5.)

C. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Rates

On May 19, 2022, Counsel Jonathan Rubinfeld moved the Court to relieve him as attorney of record for Defendant Rates. (Mot. (MC-051) – Rates.) Rubinfeld has properly filed a Notice of Motion and Motion (MC-051) and Declaration (MC-052) stating that the Motion is due to “irreconcilable differences and communication failures which would lead to ineffective representation.” (Rubinfeld Decl., MC-052, p. 1.) Counsel has asked Defendant to sign a substitution of attorney, but Defendant Rates has declined. (Ibid. at pp. 1, 4; Ex. A.) Counsel has served Defendant Rates at his last known address at 1084 Sly Fox Run, Fairburn, GA 30213, and has made attempts to confirm the address by mail, phone, and electronic mail. (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.) Counsel adds that alternatively, the Motion should be granted because he was “retained under a limited scope representation and has made significant efforts to notify Defendants by phone and email of the pending Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel.” (Ibid. at p. 2; Ex. A.) Counsel has also filed a Proposed Order (MC-053.) All documents have been timely filed with the Court and served on all the parties in the case. (Mot. (MC-051) – Rates, pp. 4-5.)

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Counsel Jonathan Rubinfeld’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel as to (1) Defendant PFA, (2) Defendant Colossal, and (3) Defendant Rates 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 Defendant has been filed with the court.” (Ibid.)