Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00652, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00652    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: R

The court is inclined to GRANT the motion to be relieved.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that this is just a delaying tactic.  Plaintiff notes that defense counsel is in contact with McCarty (who has a GAL), and McCarty is a member and manager of the entity with whom counsel claims to have lost contact.  The court is not convinced.  McCarty has some issues, and those issues have led to the appointment of a GAL.  They are also discussed or at least reflected in the criminal file concerning his competency.  In that light, it is hard to see how having contact with McCarty’s GAL is the equivalent of having contact with the entity.  There is also at least some information that suggests that McCarty was unaware that he was a managing member of the entity and that he has no involvement with it.

In any case, the court is satisfied that counsel has made an adequate showing here.

That said, the court notes that the trial date is fast approaching.  Defendant should have no assurances that the trial will be continued due to the lack of counsel or that a default will not be entered against the entity if the entity fails to retain counsel. 

The order allowing withdrawal will not become effective until a proof of service on the client is filed and counsel must also give the court and opposing counsel the best contact information that is available.  That address and contact information will be deemed conclusive for purposes of service until and unless there is a change of address or new counsel makes an appearance.