Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV18220, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18220 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 45
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
|
vs. |
Case No. |
|
|
|
|
Department 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative] RULING |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Action Filed: 06/03/22 |
|
|
Trial Date: 03/10/25 |
Hearing Date:
Moving Parties: (1) Counsel for Plaintiff Richard G.
Rubio, William E. Gilg
(2) Counsel
for Plaintiff Richard G. Rubio, Timothy J. Kodani
Responding Party: None
(1)
William E. Gilg’s Motion to be Relieved
as Counsel for Abraham Lopez
(2)
Timothy J. Kodani’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Simon Tapia
The court has
considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.
The court GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved
as counsel.
Discussion
Counsel Timothy J.
Kodani and associated counsel William E. Gilg (“Counsel”) move to be relieved
as counsel of record for Plaintiff Richard G. Rubio (“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
CRC, Rule 3.1362
requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on
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 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 form MC-053).
Here, Counsel
complied with Rule 3.1362. Counsel personally served all defendants with copies
of the motion papers filed with its declarations, and copies of the proofs of
service was filed with the court at least five days prior to the hearing. (See
Proofs of Service attached to each form.) 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 indicate that “[a]ttorney Timothy J. Kodani is unable to
communicate with client because irreconcilable differences have arisen between
attorney and client. Thus, attorney can no longer be an effective
representative of the client. Client’s continued failure and refusal to
communicate with attorney is a breach of the retainer agreement. [William E.
Gilg is] associated counsel - with primary duties of research and writing.
[Gilg] request[s] that both Mr. Kodani and [Gilg] be relieved as counsel for
this client.” (Gilg Form MC-052, ¶ 2.) These are proper bases for withdrawal.
Further, trial is
still several months away on March 10, 2025. There is no reason to believe that
Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Plaintiff.
The court
therefore GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.
It is so ordered.
Date:
______________________
Rolf Treu
Judge of the Superior
Court