Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV05927, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05927    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 22, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Brian Anders, counsel of record for Defendant Lara’s Tow Service, Inc.

Responding Party: None

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

COUNSEL TO NOTICE.

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.)

Brian Anders, counsel of record for Defendant Lara Tow Service, Inc. seeks to withdraw from representation of Defendant. Counsel states that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Trial is set for July 14, 2025; no prejudice will result from counsel’s withdrawal. Counsel has complied with CRC 3.1362.

The Court finds there is good cause for counsel’s withdrawal. The motion is GRANTED.

Hearing Date: April 22, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Kubota Tractor Acceptance Corporation

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO 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 filed.  

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to add causes of action against Defendant Lara’s Tow Service, Inc. (“LTS”) for violation of California Vehicle Code § 22658 and California Civil Code § 3070, based on facts recently discovered during discovery. Defendants do not oppose the motion to show why amendment should not be granted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.