Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV04096, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV04096, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV04096 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: C

RS FREIGHT LINE V. RUSH FREIGHT SYSTEMS

CASE NO.: 23NWCV04096

HEARING: 11/20/2024

TENTATIVE ORDER

Attorney Jason N. Cirlin’s unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff RS Freight Line is GRANTED.

Moving party(s) to give notice.

This is a debt collection action. On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff RS Freight Line (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rush Freight Systems Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff entered into an agreement for freight services with Defendant on March 4, 2021 (“Freight Agreement”). Pursuant to the Freight Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay for freight services quoted according to the prevailing rates within fifteen days, and the amounts past due would be charged at 10 percent per annum. As of October 17, 2023, Defendant has allegedly failed to pay the amount of $73,780.00 for freight services rendered by Plaintiff. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract, 2) Quantum Meruit, 3) Open Book Account, 4) Account Stated, and 5) Common Counts.

On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Jason N. Cirlin (“Attorney Cirlin”) filed this unopposed Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

A motion to be relieved as counsel requires compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Rule requires the following: 1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (Form MC-051), 2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 284(1) (Form MC-052), 3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case, and 4) the proposed order relieving counsel (Form MC-053).¿

Here, Attorney Cirlin has properly filed the notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel, a declaration in support of the motion, and the proposed order. All documents have been served on Plaintiff and Defendant. The Court finds Attorney Cirlin has met all requirements under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

An attorney requesting to be relieved must provide sufficient cause for their withdrawal. The California Professional Code of Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(4) provides that provides that a permissive request for withdrawal may be properly granted where “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively.” Rule 1.16(b)(5) further provides that a request for withdrawal may be properly granted where “the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer has given the client a reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or performs the obligation.”

Here, Attorney Cirlin’s declaration provides that there has been “[a] breakdown in communication” between Attorney’s Cirlin’s firm, Cirlin Goldberg LLC (“CGLLC”), and Plaintiff, “rendering it unreasonably difficult to carry out [CGLLC] responsibilities as counsel.” (Cirlin Decl., ¶ 2.) Further, Plaintiff has breached its retainer agreement with CGLLC. (Ibid.) The Court finds Attorney Cirlin has provided proper bases for withdrawal.

The Court GRANTS the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.