Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV27843, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27843    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles 

Hearing date:              November 12, 2024

Moving Party:             Lisa Chinai of O’Hagan Meyer LLP, Counsel for Defendant, Grandmaster Recorders, LLC

Responding Party:      None

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Grandmaster Recorders, LLC

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

The court DENIES Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Grandmaster Recorders, LLC.

Background

            This motion arises from a wrongful termination suit brought by Plaintiff Devon D’Arcangelo (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Grandmaster Recorders, LLC, (“Defendants”), and Does 1 through 25. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on November 14, 2023, alleging (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which Defendant answered on March 11, 2024.

Discussion 

Lisa Chinai (“Counsel”) now moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant.

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.) 

California Rules of Court, 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 Code of Civil Procedure, section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure, section 284, subdivision (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 filed Civil forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel), MC-052 (Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). Cpu

Counsel has shown proper basis for withdrawal and that withdrawal will not prejudice Defendants. 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 his attorney declaration, Counsel indicates that Defendants have not remained current on their invoices for services rendered or costs advanced on their behalf, and that Defendant Jill Bigelow, who also serves as the point of contact for the entity Defendant Pelv-Ice LLC, has not been responding to communications. (Counsel Declaration, ¶¶ 11–12.) This is a proper basis for withdrawal. Additionally, trial is almost a year away, on September 29, 2025. There is no reason to believe that Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Defendant.

However, Counsel has not provided an explanation as to why he is filing this motion rather than a consent. In lieu of MC-052, Counsel has submitted a separate Declaration in support of his motion. Counsel’s Declaration does not explain why he brought this motion instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure, section 284, subdivision (1). Counsel states that there “has been a breakdown in communication with Defendants regarding the fees and costs owed and to be owed…. there has been a breakdown in the strategy for proceeding in the action.” (Counsel Declaration, ¶ 12.) However, the court cannot infer that Counsel has sought Defendants’ consent to be relieved as counsel.

 The court therefore DENIES Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, on the grounds that Counsel did not file MC-052 or otherwise explain why he did not seek Defendants’ consent to be relieved as counsel.

It is so ordered. 

Dated:  November 12, 2024

_______________________ 

MEL RED RECANA 

Judge of the Superior Court