Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV01860, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01860    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            William W. Steckbauer and Sean A Topp of Hill of Farrer & Burrill, LLP (“Counsel”), counsel for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Morteza Farzadmehr, Shahla Farzadmehr Delijani, and Morteza Farzadmehr as Trustee of Progressive Trust (collectively, “Defendants”) move to be relived as Counsel for Defendants, citing a “breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.” 

            Defendants oppose the motions and Counsel have replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered in the minutes; 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

Procedural Requirements

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, requires:

(1) the motion must be made on form MC-051; (subd. (a));

(2) it must be accompanied by a declaration on form MC-052 stating why the motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) instead of a consent brought under section 284(1); (subd. (c));

(3) a proposed order on form MC-053 must be lodged with the court, specifying all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known; (subd. (e)); and

(4) The documents must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (subd. (d).)

If the notice is served by mail or electronic service, it must be accompanied by a declaration indicating that the address served is the current address, or in the case of service by mail, that it was served on the last known address and a more current address could not be located after reasonable efforts within 30 days before filing the motion.  (Ibid.)  The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.”  (Ibid.) 

Substantive Requirements

Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(a) outlines the reasons a lawyer must withdraw from representation of a client:

(1)   the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;

(2)   the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the State Bar Act;

(3)   the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation effectively; or

(4)   the client discharges the lawyer.

Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b) outlines the reasons a lawyer may withdraw from representation of a client:

(1)   the client insists upon presenting a claim or defense in litigation, or asserting a position or making a demand in a non-litigation matter, that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(2)   the client either seeks to pursue a criminal or fraudulent course of conduct or has used the lawyer’s services to advance a course of conduct that the lawyer reasonably believes was a crime or fraud;

(3)   the client insists that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is criminal or fraudulent;

(4)   the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively;

(5)   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;

(6)   the client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the representation;

(7)   the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal;

(8)   the lawyer’s mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively;

(9)   a continuation of the representation is likely to result in a violation of these rules or the State Bar Act; or

(10)           the lawyer believes in good faith in a proceeding pending before a tribunal that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

DISCUSSION

            Counsel has filed three sets of forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 and a proof of service – as to each Defendant.  The attorney declarations (MC-052) indicate that a motion was filed instead of filing a consent because “There has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship which makes it impossible to continue our representation of defendants/cross-complainants and the client, by other conduct, has rendered it unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation of defendants/cross-complainants effectively.”  Counsel cites the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).  Therefore, the Court finds that the motions are substantively proper.

            The proofs of service indicate that the clients were served via Federal Express and the other parties to the action were served via mail.  Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (c) describes the process for service by express mail, and outlines the procedures for service by overnight delivery via express service carrier.  Thus, service by Federal Express, as contemplated by Section 1013 is a form of service by mail.  Thus, all parties were properly served by mail, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).  Further, paragraph 3(b) of the attorney declaration (MC-052) confirms that the clients’ last known mailing addresses have been confirmed within the past 30 days and are current, in conformance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1)(A).  Therefore, the motions are procedurally proper.

            Defendants do not dispute any of the above, but instead oppose the motions to be Relieved as Counsel on the basis that Counsel’s withdrawal so close to trial will highly prejudice them, if the trial is not continued so that new counsel can get up to speed.  (See Declaration of Shahla Farzadmehr, ¶¶ 3-5.) 

            But the Court notes that the trial is set for December 4, 2023 which provides ample time for any new counsel to prepare for the final status conference and trial.  Further the Court notes Defendants are within their right to seek to continue the trial should they determine if further time is needed for new counsel to become familiar with the matter. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants the Motions to be Relieved as Counsel. 

Counsel must serve the signed orders (forms MC-053), which shall include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court, on Defendants and all other parties who have appeared in the action, within 10 days of the date of this Order, and file a proof of service of such.  Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Defendants until Counsel files the requisite proof of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) 

DATED:  September 28, 2023                       ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court