Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00584, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00584, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00584 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: C

David Schubert vs Allan Roberto Tay, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV00584

Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Counsel Joe A. Nunez and Kevin D. Poush’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

Counsel to give notice.

This is an employer-employee action. This motion is brought by attorneys Joe A. Nunez and Kevin D. Poush, presently counsel for Defendant Bellator Roofing, Inc., to be relived as counsel.

As of September 10, 2024 this motion is unopposed.

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.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 requires that the following be submitted in support of an attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2): (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (1) (made on Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-052)); (3) a proof of service evidencing service of the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (Judicial Council Form, MC-053)). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (a), (c), (d), (e).)

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Defendant Bellator Roofing, Inc. has filed for bankruptcy and payments to counsel have stopped. Counsel states that Defendant was served by mail at an address confirmed within 30 days by conversation with their client.

Accordingly, the motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.