Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 19STCV39466, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 19STCV39466, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39466 Hearing Date: March 14, 2025 Dept: 61

AECOM ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs GARY G. TOPOLEWSKI, et al.

Tentative

Ronald Richards’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Northern Resources, Inc. is GRANTED, conditioned on Ronald Richards provides an in-camera explanation for bringing the present motion that his declaration does not contain. If granted, the motion shall be effective upon moving counsel filing with the court proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client, as set forth in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1362(e). This order shall be amended to include the date for an OSC re: Northern’s representation and striking of answer.

Moving Counsel to give notice.

Analysis

I. MOTION TO BE RELIEVEED AS COUNSEL

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client of the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if know. Additionally, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.”

Ronald Richards seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Northern Resources, Inc. (Northern). He submits a declaration stating as follows:

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700(c)(1)(d), allows a state bar member to request permission to withdraw if the client fails, "or by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively."

(Richards Declaration.)1 The motion includes a proof of service and a proposed order indicating

upcoming hearing dates, including trial set for December 2, 2025.

Plaintiff URS Holdings, Inc. (Plaintiff) opposes the motion, arguing that granting Northern’s motion will further delay the present case, which is already in doubt based on Defendant Gary Topolewski’s present incarceration and upcoming August trial for money laundering and identity theft. (Opposition Exh. 1.) Plaintiff requests that this court impose conditions on Richards’ withdrawal as counsel, either requiring the retention of new counsel before an order relieving him as counsel is entered, or requiring Northern to retain new counsel within ten days or have its answer stricken. (Opposition at p. 3.)

A condition requiring a substitution of counsel before the motion is granted would be tantamount to denying the motion, as any substitution of counsel would render the motion moot in any event.

But certain conditions are appropriate. First, Richards’ declaration of reasons for seeking the present relief is vague, even by the generous standards ordinarily applicable to motions to be relieved as counsel. It consists solely of a citation to a rule of attorney conduct, without any averment that the condition of the rule is satisfied, or offer of further elaboration upon court request. Richards only offers to further explain matters to the court in camera in his reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Reply at p. 1.) Such an explanation would be helpful to the court, given the paucity of Richards’ declaration.

Northern’s status as a corporate defendant raises additional concerns. As a corporate litigant, Northern cannot represent itself. (See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) “[T]he court retains authority to dismiss an action if an unrepresented corporation does not obtain counsel within reasonable time.” (CLD Construction, Inc, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1150.) However, the corporation must be given an opportunity to correct the defect after receiving notice that the failure to do so could result in the striking of their pleadings. (See id. at pp. 1146–1147.) An order to show cause regarding Northern’s retention of counsel, the striking of its answer, and the entering of its default must be set if Richards’ motion is to be granted.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, conditioned on Ronald Richards provides an in-camera explanation for bringing the present motion that his declaration does not contain. If granted, the motion shall be effective upon moving counsel filing with the court proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client, as set forth in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1362(e). This order shall be amended to include the date for an OSC re: Northern’s obtaining of counsel and potential default.