Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00153, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00153    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Dolores Cortez, et al. v. Jose Garcia, et al. 

Motion of Edward J. O’Reilly of Law Office of Edward J. O’Reilly to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Dolores Cortes, Vanessa Garcia, Stephanie Valeria Garcia, and Albert Garcia 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court will continue the hearing on the motion of Edward J. O’Reilly of Law Office of Edward J. O’Reilly to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Dolores Cortes, Vanessa Garcia, Stephanie Valeria Garcia, and Albert Garcia, to allow counsel to file and serve a supplemental declaration as to additional efforts to confirm the clients' address and to submit and serve a properly completed proposed Order. 

             Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a real property dispute. On February 15, 2022, plaintiffs Dolores Cortes,[1] Vanessa Garcia, and Stephanie Valeria Garcia (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action. On April 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against defendants Jose Garcia, Freedom Mortgage, Rocket Mortgage (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for quiet title, partition, fraud, establishment of identity theft, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with economic relationship, negligence, and constructive trust. 

On June 21, 2022, cross-complainant Jose Garcia filed a cross-complaint. On February 2, 2023, cross-complainant Jose Garcia filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint against cross-defendants Dolores Cortes, Vanessa Garcia, Stephanie Valeria Garcia, Albert Garcia (collectively, Cross-Defendants), and Roes 1 to 5, alleging causes of action for quiet title, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespassing, interference with economic relationship, and quantum meruit. 

On April 2, 2025, Edward J. O’Reilly of Law Office of Edward J. O’Reilly moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants. 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 

Edward J. O’Reilly of Law Office of Edward J. O’Reilly (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (O’Reilly Decl., ¶ 2.) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) 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[.]” (Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) 

The Court notes a few problems with the motion. First, Counsel did not submit a proposed order with the motion, as required under Rule 3.1362, subdivision (e), of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (e).) Second, the Court does not find Counsel’s efforts to confirm the clients’ current address to be sufficient. (O’Reilly Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b).) The Court also notes that Counsel cites an outdated code provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (O’Reilly Decl., ¶ 2; see Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, adopted 11/1/18.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court will continue the hearing to allow counsel to file and serve a supplemental declaration as to additional efforts to confirm the clients' address and to submit and serve a properly completed proposed Order. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court will continue the hearing on the motion of Edward J. O’Reilly of Law Office of Edward J. O’Reilly to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Dolores Cortes, Vanessa Garcia, Stephanie Valeria Garcia, and Albert Garcia, to allow counsel to file and serve a supplemental declaration as to additional efforts to confirm the clients' address and to submit and serve a properly completed proposed Order. 

             Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.