Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV30039, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV30039    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Ariana Builders,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

20STCV30039

 

 

vs.

 

 

Ruling

 

 

1999 Sycamore LLC., et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: July 17, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Randy S. Snyder, counsel of record for Defendants Robert Haro; R. Douglas Spiro, Jr.; Cole Harris; CSM Sycamore, LLC; and Capital Stone Management, Inc.  

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:     THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED. COUNSEL IS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER ON THE PARTIES WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. COUNSEL WILL BE RELIEVED UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER.

 

COUNSEL TO GIVE NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

 

The Court may issue an order allowing an attorney to withdraw from representation, after notice to the client.  (CCP § 284.)  The attorney may withdraw from representation as long as the withdrawal would not result in undue prejudice to the client’s interest—i.e., counsel cannot withdraw at a critical point in the litigation.  (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; see California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700.)

 

Attorney Randy S. Snyder, counsel of record for Defendants Robert Haro; R. Douglas Spiro, Jr.; Cole Harris; CSM Sycamore, LLC; and Capital Stone Management, Inc, seeks to withdraw from representation of each Defendant. Counsel states that, due to a change in the management of 1999 Sycamore, LLC, conflicts have arisen among counsel’s clients in this action. Trial has not been set in this matter, and no prejudice will result from Counsel’s withdrawal. Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362.

 

There is good cause for Counsel’s withdrawal. The motions are GRANTED.  As this will result in corporate defendants without counsel, the Court will set an OSC re representation of the corporate entities.