Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV11843, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11843    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             April 30, 2024

Moving Parties:           Rebecca Aragon and Jacob Krall of Littler Mendelson, Counsel for Defendant, Skinny Labs Inc         

Responding Party:       None

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Skinny Labs, Inc

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

The court GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel on condition that Counsel corrects the deficiencies in the Proposed Order.

Discussion

Rebecca Aragon and Jacob Krall of Littler Mendelson (“Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Skinny Labs, 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 failed to comply with CRC, Rule 3.1362 for its motion because the Proposed Order (MC-053) Items 3, 5, and 6 are blank. 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’s failed to pay Littler’s fees and costs since September 19, 2023. (Counsel Decl., ¶¶ 3,7.) This is a proper basis for withdrawal. Further, trial has not been set. The next hearing is an OSC: Re Status of Bankruptcy and is set for July 9, 2024. There is no reason to believe that Counsels’ withdrawal will prejudice Defendant.

The court therefore GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel on the condition that Counsel corrects the deficiencies in the Proposed Order. The court orders Counsel resubmit the Proposed Order.

It is so ordered.

Date:   April 30, 2024

______________________

Mel Red Recana

Judge of the Superior Court