Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV29166, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29166    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 55

AMELL v. STAVOLA                                                         22STCV29166

Hearing Date:  3/2/23,  Dept. 55

#4:   

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Notice:  Okay.

No Opposition.

MP:  BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP, counsel of record for defendants.

RP:  

Summary

On 9/7/22, plaintiffs CASSANDRA AMELL et al. filed a Complaint.

On 1/11/23, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that their neighbor defendants own and operate a large animal kennel operation on residential property, in violation of zoning and permit laws, causing odors, noise and disease risks, and making unlivable plaintiffs’ residence located at  8743 Wonderland Park Avenue, Los Angeles.

The causes of action are:

(1) PRIVATE NUISANCE [CIVIL CODE §§ 3479, 3481];

(2) PUBLIC NUISANCE [CIVIL CODE §§ 3480, 3483];

(3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

(4) DECLARATORY RELIEF;

(5) TRESPASS; and

(6) NEGLIGENCE.

MP Positions

Moving counsel request to be relieved as attorneys of record for defendants, on grounds including the following:

·         Clients failed to cooperate with counsel.

·         Clients made it unreasonably difficult to carry out effective representation.

·         Clients failed to pay attorneys’ fees due.

·         There would be no prejudice, as time remains to obtain substitute counsel.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted.

Procedurally, the form notices, declarations, proposed orders, and proofs of service are sufficiently in compliance.  See  CRC Rule 3.1362.

Additionally, moving counsel’s declarations show 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.
• Breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (or personality clash).  Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.
• Client by conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively (e.g., noncooperation or noncommunication).  Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(4).  Cf.  Estate of Falco (1987) 188 Cal. App. 3d 1004, 1020 (“We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's implicit finding rejecting the contention that respondents' lack of cooperation justified appellants' withdrawal.”).

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 PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*