Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00120, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00120    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:   Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC, et al. v. New Age Kaleidoscope, LLC, et al. 

Snell & Wilmer LLP’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC and Charles Lewis 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS the motion to be relieved as counsel on the condition that Counsel submits a revised proposed order correcting the defects noted herein. The Court will discuss whether trial needs to be continued at the hearing on this motion. The Court will also set an OSC re Dismissal of Complaint and Cross-Complaint as to Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC for failure to retain counsel. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a rental dispute. On February 4, 2022, plaintiffs Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC and Charles Lewis (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants New Age Kaleidoscope, LLC (New Age), Kam Sang Company, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 25. On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against the same Defendants, alleging causes of action for recovery of penalties for intentional violation of the Los Angeles County eviction moratorium, fraud, rescission of lease based on fraud, rescission of guaranty based on fraud, and for breach of lease. On April 25, 2022, New Age filed a cross-complaint against Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC, Sphere West, LLC, Charles Lewis, and Roes 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for breach of written contract – minimum base rent, breach of written contract – commercial lease, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of personal guarantee, fraudulent conveyance, accounting, and declaratory relief. 

On April 8, 2022, New Age filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC and Does 1 through 10, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22PSCV00356. On June 7, 2022, Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC filed a cross-complaint against New Age, LLC, Kam Sang Company, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, alleging causes of action for recovery of penalties for intentional violation of the Los Angeles County eviction moratorium, fraud, rescission of lease based on fraud, rescission of guaranty based on fraud, and for breach of lease. On August 15, 2022, the Court ordered this action (LASC Case No. 22PSCV00120) consolidated with LASC Case No. 22PSCV00356, with this action designated as the lead case. 

On August 28, 2024, Michael B. Reynolds and Andrew B. Still of Snell & Wilmer LLP (collectively, Counsel) moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 9, 2024, New Age opposed the motion. On September 12, 2024, Counsel replied. 

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).) 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES 

            The Court notes that Counsel’s motion was untimely filed on August 28, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Counsel also correctly notes that New Age’s opposition was untimely filed on September 9, 2024. (Id.) The Court exercises its discretion to still consider the motion and opposition, but admonishes the parties to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.) 

DISCUSSION 

Michael B. Reynolds and Andrew B. Still of Snell & Wilmer LLP (collectively, Counsel) seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel contends Plaintiffs terminated the attorney-client relationship on or about July 16, 2024, but that Plaintiffs refuse to execute a substitution of attorney form. (Still Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel contends Plaintiffs’ conduct renders it impossible and unreasonable to continue to represent Plaintiffs. 

In opposition, Defendants contend that allowing Counsel to withdraw would result in significant delay in this case, and there have already been trial delays caused by withdrawals of prior counsel for Plaintiffs. 

In reply, Counsel contends that forcing them to continue representation would be unreasonable given Plaintiffs’ communication to Counsel desiring to terminate the attorney-client relationship. Counsel indicates that they only brought this motion because Plaintiffs refused to communicate or respond to the signed Substitution of Attorney form provided to them, and argues that it would be illogical or impossible for Counsel to continue to represent Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs have rejected Counsel as their legal representation. Counsel further argues that they are not asking for a trial continuance and that it would be unfair to force Plaintiffs to accept the continued representation of Counsel. Counsel also notes the lack of objection from Plaintiffs to this motion. 

The Court finds Counsel have demonstrated a reasonable basis for withdrawal, namely the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4); Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) While the Court agrees with New Age that the proximity of the trial date is problematic here, the Court is hesitant to force Counsel to continue representing Plaintiffs when it appears Plaintiffs do not want Counsel to continue representing them. (See Still Decl., ¶ 2.) 

Counsel has otherwise provided the proper Judicial Council forms per Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) However, the Court notes that the declaration and proposed order provide the incorrect location for the trial as the Pomona Courthouse. (Still Decl., ¶ 6; Proposed Order, ¶ 9, subd. (b).) The correct location for the trial of this action will be Department 6 at the West Covina Courthouse, located at 1427 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790. This can easily be corrected by submitting a corrected proposed order. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion on the condition that Counsel submits a revised proposed order correcting the defects identified herein. The Court will discuss with the parties at the hearing on this motion whether a trial continuance is needed to permit Plaintiffs to retain new counsel. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion to be relieved as counsel on the condition that Counsel submits a revised proposed order correcting the defects noted herein. The Court will discuss whether trial needs to be continued at the hearing on this motion. The Court will also set an OSC re Dismissal of Complaint and Cross-Complaint as to Figueroa Street and Fifth, LLC for failure to retain counsel. 

Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.