Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV28817, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28817    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:         7/30/2020

Trial Date:                   10/23/2023

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:                         2/26/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name:                             CANDESHA WASHINGTON, an Individual vs. JOHANA FARAJ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, INCLUSIVE

Case No.:                                20STCV28817

Motion:                                   PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff BRADLEY SCHENCK

Responding Party:                   Defendant JOHANA FARAJ

Notice:                                    Sufficient

Ruling:                                    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS GRANTED

1.      BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Candesha Washington filed an auto accident case against Defendant Defendant Johanna Faraj. A jury trial took place on October 23 and 24, 2023. On October 24, 2023, during the trial, Plaintiff appearing pro per, agreed to a settlement on the record. Plaintiff’s attorney now states that there is a breakdown in attorney client relationship and filed the present motion to be relieved as counsel.

2.      LEGAL STANDARD 

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel ([without client consent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section] 284, subd. (2)) is one which 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.’” (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].) 

The California Rules of Court provide that: 

(1) A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051); 

(2) The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052), with the declaration needing to state 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); 

(3) The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053), must be lodged with the court with the moving papers, and must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known; and 

(4) The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case, where service may be made by personal service, electronic service, or mail, subject to certain conditions for service by mail, overnight delivery, or fax, as well as for service by email. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c)-(e).) 

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. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (e).) 

The court should consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.” (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Tthe 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.) 

3.      DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The statutory requirements for an attorney's withdrawal have been met in this case. With a settlement reached and the jury trial concluded, there's little need for the attorney's further involvement, minimizing any potential prejudice. Bringing in new legal representation now is unlikely to change the case strategy or affect its outcome, especially given the minimal work left. The recent developments, including the attorney's reported breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, cast doubt on the viability of the plaintiff's attorney's continued representation. Hence, the motion for the plaintiff’s attorney to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.