Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV14165, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

This action arises from the breach of a commercial lease agreement. Plaintiff Century City Mall, LLC alleges its former tenant, Defendant Bailey 44, LLC, refused to pay rent and then unlawfully abandoned the leased premises with several years of term remaining.

On December 13, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation and protective order.

On February 21, 2024, Aaron M. Brian, counsel for Defendant Bailey 44, LLC filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) 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) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Aaron M. Brian seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant for the following reasons: “Irreconcilable differences have arisen between client and attorney making it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively.” (Form MC-052.) Defense counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

In its conditional opposition, Plaintiff explains it was compelled to produce third-party lease agreements (“Tenant Leases”). Plaintiff argues Defendant cannot be trusted with the third- Tenant Leases because Defendant has twice violated the protective order by publicly filing documents subject to the protective order. As such, the protective order does not provide protection and further, it presupposes that entity parties are represented by counsel and are cooperating with its counsel. Given that Defense Counsel seeks to be relieved, and Defendant’s history of violating the protective order, Plaintiff therefore requests that Defense Counsel’s withdrawal be conditioned on the filing of a declaration which attests to the return and destruction of the Tenant Leases to ameliorate any prejudice to Plaintiff.

In reply, Counsel for Defendant filed a declaration. The declaration states that the Tenant Leases were disclosed only to the Defendant. (Brian Decl., ¶ 4.)

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

Upon review, the court will hear from counsel regarding the status of new counsel substituting into the case and the current status of the documents that are subject to the protective order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court