Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV22167, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 20STCV22167    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 55

GMP ASSOCIATES, INC. v. RABIZADEH                                 20STCV22167

Hearing Date:  10/26/22,  Dept. 55

#12:   MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Daniel J. Phelps, Phelps Law, counsel of record for AA SEAWARD MAINTENANCE LLC.

RP:  

 

Summary

 

On 6/12/20, Plaintiff GMP ASSOCIATES, INC. filed a Complaint

On 6/15/20, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that the owner defendants agreed to pay for remodeling of their owned home, but failed to pay for a significant portion of the construction work.

The Plaintiff’s causes of action are:

1.      BREACH OF CONTRACT

2.      REASONABLE VALUE OF WORK

3.      FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS LIEN.

On 8/3/20, Cross-Complaint was filed by defendants RACHEL RABIZADEH and SHAWN RABIZADEH against Plaintiff, alleging Plaintiff did remodeling having numerous construction defects.

On 8/24/22, defendants filed a motion seeking to amend defendants’ Cross-Complaint, to include alter ego allegations and a claim for Violations Penal Code Section 496(b).

On 4/27/21, a Cross-Complaint was filed by GMP ASSOCIATES, INC. and GABRIEL MARTIN PEREZ, against MOES 1 through 50, regarding getting indemnification pursuant to subcontractors’ agreements.

Requests for dismissals have been filed, including on 9/27/22 and 10/6/22.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving counsel request an order to be relieved as counsel of record, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct Rule 1.16(b) and professional considerations require termination of representation.

·         And an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship exists.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted.

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

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

 

 

 

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.