Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV18631, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Thursday, December 14, 2023

2. Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel for Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc.

The Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for 6851 Sepulveda Blvd., Inc.; J.K. Residential Services, Inc.; and Anza Management Company are GRANTED.

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Reina I. Contreras (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants 6851 Sepulveda Blvd. Inc. and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) general negligence. The complaint arises from Plaintiff allegedly being struck on the head by a piece of ceiling at her residence.

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint which substituted J.K.

Residential Services, Inc. for Doe 1. On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to

On January 26, 2023, Thomas H. Citron (“Citron”) filed substitution of attorney forms indicating that he was the new legal representative for Defendants 6851 Sepulveda Blvd. Inc. J.K. Residential Services, Inc. and Anza Management Company. On September 14, 2023, Citron filed and served a motion to be relieved as counsel for 6851 Sepulveda Blvd., Inc. and JK Properties, Inc. On November 6, 2023, this Court denied that Motion on procedural grounds. Citron re-served the same motion to be relieved as counsel (the “Motion”) for (1) 6851 Sepulveda Blvd., Inc.^{^[1]}, (2) J.K. Residential Services, Inc., and (3) Anza Management Company (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed opposition papers on December 1, 2023. No reply papers were filed.

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after

judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from

one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a

motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi &

An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051

(Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration)

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule

3.1362(e)). The proposed order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or

proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)

Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) 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(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994), 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Here, Citron provides both forms MC-051 and MC-052 to withdraw as counsel for all three Defendants. Citron lists all scheduled hearings for this matter, which remedies the previous deficiency. Citron also details that the reason for the Motion is the complete breakdown in communication between Citron and Defendants. (Declaration of Thomas H. Citron, ¶ 3.) Citron states that Defendants have apparently blocked the receipt of emails from his firm, and additionally have failed to pay attorney’s fees and the costs of experts that had been previously agreed upon. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Defendants oppose the Motion arguing that they did not block the firm’s emails; the emails were rejected because the name of an attorney who no longer works for Defendants was included, triggering the rejection. Defendants are silent on the issue of payment. However, Defendants agree that the attorney-client relationship is irreparable and that a change in legal representation is needed.

Defendants’ agreement, however, seems contingent on the Court granting a continuance of the trial date for “at least another 90-120 days” because Defendants will be “left without counsel and unfairly prejudiced by Mr. Citron’s conduct.” The Court will not grant a continuance at this time because the opposition to a motion to be relieved as counsel is not the proper vehicle to request a trial continuance; that is left to a separate motion to continue trial. On the other hand, the Court will grant the motions to withdraw because all of the technical requirements are met and because Defendants have not demonstrated that they will be prejudiced by the withdrawal. Trial in this case is not scheduled until June 5, 2024, with a Final Status Conference scheduled for May 23, 2024. Accordingly, Defendants have sufficient time to obtain new counsel or prepare for trial as self-represented litigants.

[1] Each declaration attached to form MC-052 in paragraph 1, states this Defendant as “8553 Sepulveda Blvd., Inc.” instead of “6851 Sepulveda Blvd., Inc.” The Court assumes this is a typographical error.