Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV03609, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03609    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: I

The court is concerned about this.  The trial is only about three months away and counsel for plaintiff seeks to withdraw.  The court must DENY the motion because there is no proposed order—which is required by law.  However, the court will allow counsel to bring the matter again on an ex parte basis.  But, and this is important, the court will not continue the trial date on the theory that plaintiff needs new counsel or needs to find new counsel.  Therefore, the court ORDERS plaintiff to be present at the next hearing.  Counsel should coordinate to make sure that happens.  Plaintiff may appear telephonically, but the court wants to be sure that plaintiff appreciates that this could be the equivalent of a case-ending order.  The court has doubts that plaintiff will be able to comply with the court’s rules regarding FSC materials or trial without counsel, and the court doubts that counsel can be substituted in at this late date.  That does not mean that the motion will be denied—in fact, it will likely be granted if there is truly a breakdown as counsel suggests.  But plaintiff needs to know the consequences.