Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV46572, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46572    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             May 1, 2024

Moving Parties:           Katherine F. Wenger and Brown, Gee & Wenger LLP, Counsel for Defendant, Grace & Co. Inc.

Responding Party:       None

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Grace & Co. Inc.

The court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition was received.

The court GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.

Discussion

Katherine F. Wenger and Brown, Gee & Wenger LLP (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Grace & Co. Inc. The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

CRC, Rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

Here, Counsel has complied with CRC, Rule 3.1362. Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(10) provides that a permissive request for withdrawal may be properly granted where an attorney believes that the tribunal will find good cause for withdrawal. In the attorney declaration (Form MC-052), Counsel indicates that Defendant failed to pay Brown Gee &Wenger LLP’s fees. (Counsel Decl., ¶ 2.) Moreover, Counsel submits the declaration of Daniel Grace who was Defendant’s former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Daniel Grace states that “[a]t the beginning of February, Grace & Co. entered into an assignment for the benefit of its creditors. In connection with that assignment for benefit of creditors, I resigned all of my positions with Grace & Co. including my former position as an officer and director. Grace & Co. no longer has any directors or officers. As a result of this assignment, Brown Gee & Wenger LLP’s representation of Grace & Co. has been terminated.” (Grace Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  This is a proper basis for withdrawal. Although trial has been set for October 14, 2024, the Court finds that there would not be obvious prejudice because there are about five months for a new counsel to prepare for trial. Moreover, Defendant was notified of the withdrawal but did not file an opposition. The next hearing is a Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled for October 4, 2024. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Defendant.

The court therefore GRANTS Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

It is so ordered.

Date:   May 1, 2024

______________________

Mel Red Recana

Judge of the Superior Court