Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV31475, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV31475    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 27


 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

VIOLETA AREVALO,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

FOREVER 21, INC,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 19STCV31475

 

STATUS RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 7, 2024

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On December 22, 2023, Defendant Forever 21, Inc.’s counsel, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

California Rule 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.)

III.     DISCUSSION

Counsel seeks to be relieved on grounds that the entity has been dissolved, and all its assets were distributed in bankruptcy. Further, the client has breached a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to counsel relating to the representation (Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5)). 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.).

Separate from this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in response to the Court’s OSC re dismissal, contending that because the bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed without any plan confirmation, nothing prohibits Plaintiff from moving forward with her action.  However, it appears from the bankruptcy court’s order included with counsel’s declaration, Defendant was allowed to file a certificate of dissolution.  Before the Court grants defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and keeping in mind that the Court must ensure that such withdrawal does not disrupt the orderly process of justice, the Court would like the parties to address the impact of the bankruptcy court order referenced herein.