Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV00020, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 24STCV00020    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

VIKTOR VILOTIJEVIC, an individual,

 

                             Plaintiff,

 

                              vs.

PRESTIGE MEDIA GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

 

                              Defendant.
Case No.:  24STCV00020

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed:  01/01/24

Trial Date: Not Set

 

Hearing date:  October 10, 2024

Moving Party: William R. Bailey and Bailey Law Corporation, Counsel for Defendant, Prestige Media Group, Inc.

Responding Party:  None

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Prestige Media Group, Inc.

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

            The motion is GRANTED.

The court orders Defendant Prestige Media Group, Inc. to appear on _________________, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 45, and show cause as to why its operative Answer to the Complaint should not be stricken on account of its status as an unrepresented entity. 

Background

            William R. Bailey and Bailey Law Corporation (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Prestige Media Group, Inc. (“Defendant”).

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Viktor Vilotijevic (“Plaintiff”) filed their complaint against Defendant asserting the following causes of action: 1) Retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5; 2) Retaliation under Labor Code section 98.6; 3) Retaliation (FEHA); 4) Wrongful Termination; 5) Harassment (FEHA); 6) Defamation (Slander per se); 7) Failure to Produce Employment Records; 8) Failure to Produce Wage Statements; and 9) Negligence. On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed their answer.

 

Legal Standard

            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)). 

 

Discussion

Counsel complied with CRC, Rule 3.1362 for its motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. Counsel properly served Defendant by mail at their last known address, confirmed current by conversation, and on Plaintiff by electronic service. (Counsel Decl., ¶ 3(a)(2).) Defendant and Plaintiff were served with copies of the motion papers, including Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (Civil form MC-051), declaration in support of the motion (Form MC-052), and the proposed order. (Counsel Decl., ¶ 3(a)(2).)

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 there has been a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship but the facts giving rise to this motion are confidential under Business and Professions Code §6068(e), rule 3-100(A), California Rules of Professional Conduct, and by the attorney-client privilege (Evid. C., §§950 et seq.). (Counsel Decl., ¶ 2.) This is a proper basis for withdrawal. Further, trial has not yet been set. There is no reason to believe that Counsel’s withdrawal will prejudice Defendant. No opposition has been filed by Defendant to the contrary.

The Court finds that Counsel has complied with all procedural requirements set out in Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362.  No opposition has been filed to show that withdrawal would cause an injustice or undue delay in the proceedings.  The Court finds that withdrawal of Counsel as attorney of record for Defendant can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the Defendant’s interests. 

The court therefore GRANTS Counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel. Counsel shall be relieved as counsel of record effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order on Defendant.

 

The court orders Defendant Prestige Media Group, Inc. to appear on _________________, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 45, and show cause as to why its operative Answer to the Complaint should not be stricken on account of its status as an unrepresented entity. 

 

            It is so ordered.

 

Dated: October 10, 2024

 

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court