Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00283, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00283, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00283 Hearing Date: September 6, 2023 Dept: C

young v. smcl holdings

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00283

HEARING: 9/6/23 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Rudolph & Chonoles, LLP to give NOTICE.

Defendant’s counsel, Richard Rudolph of Rudolph & Chonoles, LLP moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant, SMCL Holdings, Inc. (Defendant).

Background

This is a PAGA action against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay employees for all hours worked and for missed meal and break periods.

Discussion

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following: (1) The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. (2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or (3) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or (4) The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or (5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or (6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal. An attorney may request to withdraw from representation of a corporate client. (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.)

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on Rudolph’s assertions in his declaration that there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the stipulation by counsel and Defendant that each party agrees to relieve Rudolph as counsel. Further, Defendant acknowledges it is aware that it cannot represent itself. Defendant was served by mail at its last known address which was confirmed in the last 30 days.

The motion is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when proof of service of the signed order on Defendant has been filed with the court.