Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV08885, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV08885, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08885 Hearing Date: November 8, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Hearing Date: 11/8/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV08885 ERNESTO RIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL vs BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.

Moving Party: Plaintiff’s Counsel Bradford G. Hughes

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: The Court will hear from the moving party

Background

Attorney Bradford G. Hughes of Clark Hill represents Cross-Defendant Logistics Academy. Hughes moves to be relieved as counsel, citing an irremediable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. No opposition has been filed. Clark Hill, through attorney Maryam Danishwar, previously filed a substitution of attorney, but that substitution of attorney appeared to be invalid as it provided for Logisitcs Academy to be self-represented by a non-attorney. However, corporations must be represented by counsel.

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

Hughes has filed Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Hughes seeks to be relieved as counsel for Cross Defendant on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. 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).)

However, the Court is concerned about how this withdrawal arose in light of the above-referenced substitution of attorney. Counsel failed to appear at an October 28, 2024 OSC regarding that substitution, as a result of which the Court set an OSC Re: Sanctions in the Amount of $1,001 as to Former Counsel for 12/16/24. Accordingly, the Court will hear from counsel.