Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV14901, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14901    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff Sara M. Chauarria (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants L Brands, Inc., Limited Brands Inc., The Limited, Inc., Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC; Karen, and Pacific Retail Capital Partners (collectively “Defendants”) alleging negligence, premises liability, and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee.  Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a sale sign when she exited a Victoria’s Secret store owned, operated, maintained, and inspected by Defendants.

            On June 30, 2022, Defendants Bath & Body Works, Inc., fka L Brands Inc., Limited Brands, Inc., The Limited, Inc., and Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC (erroneously named as defendants and improper parties) and Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC filed an answer.

            On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Nare Kupelian, (“Counsel Kupelian”) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel concurrently with a declaration in support and an order granting the motion.  The instant motion is set to be heard on May 5, 2023.

                 II. LEGAL STANDARD 

An attorney in an action¿may be changed¿at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon the order of the court,¿upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.  (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §284(2)).¿ Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 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 CCP §284(2), is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP §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).

(Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.) 

The motion should be denied if withdrawal would¿prejudice the client.¿ (Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3-700(A)(2); Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial, 9:385.2 (2008); 1 Witkin Cal. Pro., Attorneys §72 (2008).)¿ The motion should be denied if it will¿cause undue delay in the proceeding or cause injustice.¿ (Mandell v. Superior Court, (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)¿ The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies¿within the sound discretion of the trial court, having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.¿ (Lempert v. Superior Court¿(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)¿ A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (or personality clash) is grounds for withdrawal.¿ (Estate of Falco¿(1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.)  An attorney is not limited to withdrawing from a case for cause and may withdraw when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client.¿ (Ramirez v. Sturdevant¿(1994) 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, 559.) 

              III.DISCUSSION 

Here, Counsel Kupelian filed all the required forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel.  Counsel Kupelian states that “there has been a complete breakdown of the Attorney-Client relationship.”  (Decl. Kupelian No. 2.)  Counsel Kupelian served Plaintiff with copies of the motion papers and the declaration by mail at Plaintiff’s last known address, which Counsel Kupelian confirmed within the past 30 days is current by telephone.  (Decl. Kupelian No. 3.)  The Court notes the next hearing scheduled in this action is a Final Status Conference set for June 28, 2023.  There is also an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal set for April 16, 2024.  Trial is not scheduled until July 12, 2023; therefore, there will be time for Plaintiff to obtain other counsel or prepare for trial.  The unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

              IV.CONCLUSION 

The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

Dated this 5th day of May 2023