Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV12621, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12621 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: 9/25/2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff Unbounded Entertainment
Group, Inc.
Responding
Party: None
(1) Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel for Unbounded Entertainment Group, Inc.
The Court
considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.
The
motion is DENIED.
Discussion
Zachary Levine (“Counsel Levine”) moves to be
relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff Unbounded Entertainment Group, Inc.
(“Plaintiff”).
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.)
A motion to be relieved as counsel requires compliance with CRC, Rule
3.1362. The Rule requires the following: (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 Levine has not fulfilled all CRC, Rule 3.1362 requirements. Counsel
Levine served the motion and supporting declaration to Plaintiff and
Defendant’s counsel, and proof of service for each document was filed with the
Court. However, Counsel Levine did not file a proposed order (Civil form
(MC-053)).
An attorney requesting to be relieved must provide sufficient cause for
their withdrawal. The California Professional Code of Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(5)
provides that a permissive request for withdrawal may be properly granted where
“the client breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to
the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer has given the client
a reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the
client fulfills the agreement or performs the obligation.” The California
Professional Code of Conduct, Rule 1.16(b)(10) further 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 (Civil form MC-052), Counsel Levine indicates that Plaintiff is
currently in breach of counsel’s retainer agreement and that there is a
breakdown in communication rendering his continued representation impossible.
(Levine Decl., ¶¿ 2.) The Court finds proper basis for withdrawal. Although,
the Court notes that Counsel Devine has not indicated in his declaration
whether he gave the Plaintiff a reasonable warning that he would withdraw after
Plaintiff’s breach.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Counsel Levine’s motion.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: September
25, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court