Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 2020-01147283 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-01147283, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

2) Status Conference

Motion to be Relieved

The Motion to be Relieved brought by Plaintiff’s counsel, Sasha Tymkowicz, Esq. (“Counsel”), is CONTINUED to January 9, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C31.

As explained further below, Counsel failed to fully comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1362 of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) and also failed to articulate the “general nature” of the conflict requiring withdrawal.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Proof of Service filed on August 25, 2022, indicates service of only the Notice of Motion and Motion. (ROA No. 118.) Pursuant to CRC 3.1362(d), “[t]he notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Similarly, the Declaration on Form MC-052 does not reflect service of the motion papers. (See Form MC-052 ¶3(a).)

Thus, based on the papers before the Court, it appears Counsel did not appropriately serve her client.

Additionally, “[t]he determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4^th 1128, 1133.) “Where issues of confidentiality prevent ‘counsel from further disclosure and the court [accepts] the good faith of counsel’s representations, the court should find the conflict sufficiently established and permit withdrawal.” (Id. at 1133.)

However, “[t]he trial court need not ‘accept a sweeping claim of conflict and ‘rubber stamp’ counsel’s request to withdraw.’” (Id. at 1134.) “The trial court still has a duty to explore the conflict, and counsel has a corresponding duty to respond, and to describe the general nature, as fully as possible but within the confines of privilege.” (Id. at 1134 (emphasis added).) The Court in Manfredi noted that, “Counsel would have done well to give the court some information as to the shape and size of the conflict here.” (Id.) While Counsel cannot and should not reveal privileged information, they should nonetheless give the Court “meaningful information about the general nature of the conflict…” (Id. at 1135-1136.)

Here, counsel merely states that an unidentified conflict exists and “it would not be beneficial to this party for this counsel to continue representing this client’s interest in this case.” (See Declaration.) This fails to describe “the general nature” of the conflict, within the confines of the privilege and, moreover, does not indicate the shape and size of the conflict. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4^th 1128, 1134.) Similarly, Counsel has failed to provide “meaningful information about the general nature of the conflict…” (Id. at 1135-1136.)

To be clear: the Court is not in any way suggesting or requiring that moving Counsel disclose specific, privileged information. However, the reason given for withdrawal here is too generic and too vague to support the requested relief.

The Court continues the hearing as set forth to allow Counsel to file supplemental papers proof of proper service of all necessary papers in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.