Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV35050, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV35050, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35050 Hearing Date: January 3, 2025 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Hearing Date: 1/3/2025 at 1:30 p.m.

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV35050 MICHAEL GREENWOOD, AN INDIV... vs ALL CARTAGE TRANSPORTATION et al.

Moving Party: Defendant’s Counsel Hirschfeld Kraemer

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Insufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IS DENIED

Background

Law firm Hirschfeld Kraemer represents Defendant Cartage West, Inc. Defense counsel moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard¿

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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)

Analysis and Conclusion¿

Counsel has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and nonpayment of attorney fees. The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal. (See Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014 (a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw).)

Counsel states he personally served the client with copies of the motion papers filed with his declaration. However, the proof of service shows that the motion was not personally served on Defendant but was instead served electronically. Moreover, there is no indication that the client’s last known email address was confirmed to be current. In other words, there is no evidence that the client actually received service of this motion, particularly given Counsel’s representation that Defendant is not responding to communications. Additionally, trial is currently set for January 7, 2025, which is only four days away. This would not provide sufficient time for Defendant to retain new counsel, and withdrawal at this time would result in prejudice and disrupt the orderly process of justice. Accordingly, the present motion is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.