Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 20STCV14287, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV14287 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: D.G., a minor through his guardian ad litem Anthony Gonzalez v. Clockwork Property Management, Inc., et al.
Motion of Jason A. Kirkpatrick, Esq. and Walker & Kirkpatrick to be Relieved as Counsel for RMR Pros, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court will hear from Counsel regarding efforts to confirm Defendant RMR Pros Inc.’s last known address.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.
BACKGROUND
This is a premises liability action. On April 13, 2020, plaintiff D.G., a minor through his guardian ad litem Anthony Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed this action. On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against defendants Clockwork Property Management, Inc., RMR Pros Inc. (RMR), Hanan Faytrouni, and Does 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.
On August 6, 2020, Clockwork Property Management, inc. filed a cross-complaint against Hanan Faytrouni and Roes 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for equitable indemnity, contractual indemnity, equitable contribution and apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.
On March 30, 2021, Hanan Faytrouni and Khaled A. Faytrouni filed a cross-complaint against Anthony Gonzalez, Inna Gonzalez, and Moes 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for negligence, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On July 2, 2024, Jason A. Kirkpatrick, Esq. and Walker & Kirkpatrick moved to be relieved as counsel for RMR. The motion is unopposed.
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).)
DISCUSSION
Jason A. Kirkpatrick, Esq. and Walker & Kirkpatrick (collectively, Counsel), seek to be relieved as counsel for RMR. Counsel contends there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Kirkpatrick Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this to be proper grounds for withdrawal.
Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the client’s conduct that “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.]” (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.)
Counsel has provided the appropriate Judicial Council forms, namely forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) Plaintiff has also provided proof of service of these documents. (Proof of Service (10/5/23).)
However, the Court finds some issues with respect to Counsel confirming RMR’s current or last known address. Counsel’s supporting declaration on the one hand indicates having confirmed RMR’s current address by sending copies of the motion via certified mail to the current addresses listed on the Secretary of State website and emails to former officers of RMR, as well as RMR’s bankruptcy attorney. (Kirkpatrick Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(d).) The Court does not find this sufficient, as it is unclear if Counsel received responses from RMR confirming the address as being current.
On the other hand, Counsel indicates they were unable to confirm that RMR’s address is current or locate a more current address after undertaking certain efforts, such as calling RMR’s last known telephone numbers, searching the Secretary of State website and federal bankruptcy case, and emails to RMR. (Kirkpatrick Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(2).) If Counsel was unable to confirm or locate a more current address, Counsel then should have completed item 3, subdivision (c), of the declaration regarding why the Court should grant Counsel’s motion even if Counsel has been unable to serve RMR with the moving papers. (Kirkpatrick Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (c).)
CONCLUSION
The Court will hear from Counsel regarding efforts to confirm Defendant RMR Pros Inc.’s last known address.
Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.