Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 19STCV36520, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36520    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 55

 SOLORIO v. NARANJO                                                   19STCV36520

Hearing Date:  2/9/23,  Dept. 55

#7:   MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Sirmabekian Law Firm, PC, counsel of record for Plaintiff LUIS MANUEL FLORES.

RP:  

Summary

On 10/11/19, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.

On 3/15/21, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that defendants failed to pay their employees for all hours worked, missed, short, late, and interrupted meal periods, and rest breaks, and committed other wage-and-hour violations.

The causes of action are:

1. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197);

2. FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198);         

3. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198);

4. FAILURE TO PAY MEAL PERIOD COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7);

5. FAILURE TO PAY REST PERIOD COMPENSATION (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7);

6. FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE WAGE AND HOUR STATEMENTS (Cal. Lab. Code § 226);

7. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UPON DISCHARGE (Cal. Lab. Code § 201);

8. STATUTORY PENALTIES (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 203 and 558);

9. FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY AND ILLEGAL DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802);

10. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1198.5;

11. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(c), (e)(1), and (f);

12. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE;

13. VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 2698 et seq.;

14. UNFAIR COMPETITION (Business and Professions Code § 17200); and

15. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER (Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04(a)(1)).

MP Positions

Counsel moves to be relieved as attorney of record, based upon a form declaration evidencing that a conflict developed with the client, who is in breach of the retainer agreement.  More could be revealed in camera.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted.

Procedurally, the form notice, declaration, and proof of services, are sufficiently in compliance.  See  CRC Rule 3.1362.

Additionally, moving counsel’s declaration shows cognizable grounds for withdrawal:

• Client breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.  Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(5);  Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1173.
• Attorney “believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal."  Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16.

Further, no opposing papers have been filed in order to evidence any prejudice to the client.  See  Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(d). 

“The determination whether to grant or deny an attorney 's motion to  withdraw as counsel of record lies within the sound discretion  of the trial court, having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.”  Lempert v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1173.  See also  Jones v. Green (1946) 74 Cal. App. 2d 223, 230.

*IF BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE, PLEASE CALL 213-633-0655 TO NOTIFY THE COURTROOM*