Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00369, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00369    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Ralf Weigel v. Terrence Sperry 

Motion to be Relieved as Defendant’s Counsel 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is a breach of contract action. On April 13, 2022, plaintiff Ralf Weigel (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Terrence Sperry (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, replevin, and declaratory relief. Defendant filed an answer on September 26, 2022. 

On December 21, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for failure to pay overtime, willful misclassification of employee as an independent contractor, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse expenses, and conversion. 

            On February 27, 2024, Charles P. Boylston of the Law Offices of Charles P. Boylston, APC (Counsel), moved to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. 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           

            Counsel moves to be relieved as counsel for Defendant on the grounds that conflicts have arisen, along with a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and a breach of an obligation to Counsel’s office. (Boylston Decl., Attachment 2, ¶¶ 3-5.) The Court finds these 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.) 

            However, the Court finds some issues with respect to Counsel’s motion. Although Counsel provided the application, declaration, and proposed order on Judicial Council forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivisions (a) and (e), (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (e)), the declaration and proposed order are incomplete and otherwise defective. First, Counsel did not complete paragraph 3, subdivision (a), of the declaration. (Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (a).) Second, paragraph 3, subdivision (b)(1)(d), only states that Defendant was served by electronic service. (Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b)(1)(d).) This subsection addresses the means by which Counsel confirmed Defendant’s current address within 30 days of filing the motion, not whether service was effected. (See Id.) Third, the proposed order is incomplete from paragraph 2 onward. (See Proposed Order.) 

            Finally, rule 3.1362, subdivision (d)(2) of the California Rules of Court provides that if the attorney serves the motion to be relieved as counsel electronically on the client, the attorney must provide a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client’s current electronic service address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d)(2).) Counsel’s proof of service only indicates having served the motion on Defendant at Defendant’s electronic service address, and provides no indication that that is Defendant’s current electronic service address. (Proof of Service (2/27/24).) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice. 

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