Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01925, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01925    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:   Michael Rosas, et al. v. OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, et al. 

Motions to be Relieved as Counsel (x2) 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the motions to be relieved as Plaintiffs’ counsel without prejudice. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is a fraud action. On November 21, 2022, plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, a California corporation, Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation, Capital One Auto Finance Inc., a Texas Corporation (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for fraud & deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, action for rescission of sales contract for sale of goods pursuant to California [sic] Code section 1698, violation of California Civil Code section 1632, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty [sic], Civil Code section 1790, et seq., violation of the Consumers [sic] Legal Remedies Act – Equitable and Injunctive Relief, and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711. 

On September 5, 2023, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motions. 

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 

Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel contends he and his firm have lost all contact with Plaintiffs. (Roberts Decls., ¶ 2.) 

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.) While the Court finds Plaintiffs’ lack of communication sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal, the Court finds a few issues with Counsel’s motions that need to be fixed. 

First, each of the Judicial Council forms Counsel filed with the Court show that Counsel provided the wrong courthouse contact information in the caption of each document. Counsel provided the contact information for the Pomona Courthouse, but the correct courthouse is the West Covina Courthouse. It is unclear to the Court whether Counsel served the forms with the incorrect courthouse information, which would be inadequate notice to Plaintiffs of the location for the hearing on these motions. 

Second, Counsel’s declarations indicate that he could not confirm Plaintiffs’ last known address, but instead confirmed through an investigator that Plaintiffs’ address and phone number are the same. (Roberts Decls., ¶ 3, subd. (b).) Counsel does not state how the information was confirmed through the investigator. The Court does not find this information sufficient to confirm Plaintiffs’ current address. 

Third, the proposed orders contain outdated hearing information, as the Post-Arbitration Status Conference was continued to May 13, 2024, following Counsel’s filing of these motions. (See Minute Order (3/14/24).) In fact, the Court noted at the hearing on March 14, 2024 that Counsel would need to provide an updated proposed order to include that Plaintiffs must appear and advise the Court of the status of arbitration. (Id.) 

            Therefore, the Court DENIES the motions without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the motions to be relieved as Plaintiffs’ counsel without prejudice. 

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