Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00028915-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00028915-CU-BC-CTL JB HOME IMPROVEMENT INC VS DANIELS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Attorneys William Ward and Vivy Dang's motion to be relieved as counsel is conditionally GRANTED.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c), requires an attorney to declare the grounds for withdrawing 'in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).' The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel is within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133; Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) An attorney may withdraw from a case if withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests.

(Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) Here, attorney Ward sufficiently explained in his declaration in general terms why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) was brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1). Given that the conditions necessitating the withdrawal stem solely from noncooperation and a fee dispute with his client, the potential for unfair prejudice to Plaintiff JB Home Improvements Inc. is minimal. Plaintiff also still has time before the March 2024 trial date to secure new counsel. Attorneys Ward and Dang have otherwise complied with the applicable procedural requirements and thus, the motion to be relieved as counsel is conditionally granted.

The ban on corporate self-representation also does not prevent the court from granting a motion to withdraw as attorney of record, even if it leaves the corporation without representation. 'Such an order puts pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important rights through nonrepresentation.' (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.) Plaintiff JB Home Improvements Inc. and its representatives are advised of the necessity to be represented by an attorney. (Ibid.) Counsel is directed to provide a revised form order for the court's signature that includes the parties appearing at the hearing. Within five court days of entry of the signed revised form order, counsel shall then serve: (1) notice of this ruling; and (2) the signed form order on all parties. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362, subd. (e).) Attorneys William Ward and Vivy Dang, and their law firm, The Ward Firm, will be relieved as counsel as of the date the proof of service of this order and the signed form order is filed with the court. (Ibid.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3046749  15