Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV02792, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02792    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING – NO. 1

MOTION

            Todd Scherwin, Nazanin Afshar, and Melissa Huether of Fisher & Phillips LLP (“Counsel), counsel for Defendant Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC, move to be relieved as counsel, citing a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  The motion is unopposed.

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 forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053.  The attorney declaration (MC-052) indicates that the motion was filed instead of filing a consent because, “irreconcilable differences have led to an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.”  (MC-052 at ¶ 2.)  As such, the Court finds that the motion complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(4).

            The proofs of service indicates each of these forms were served electronically and by mail on counsel for plaintiff and by mail on the client.  The attorney declaration further indicates the client’s mailing addresses have been confirmed current within the past 30 days by telephone.  (MC-052, ¶ 3.)  Therefore, the motion is also procedurally proper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, having found the Motion both procedurally and substantively proper, the Court grants Counsels’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. 

Counsel must serve the signed order (form MC-053), which shall include information about all future hearings and proceedings noticed by any party, or ordered by the Court, on the clients 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 Defendant Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC until Counsel files the requisite proof(s) of service.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) 

Further, to ensure that the Court’s records are updated following the filing of the proof(s) of service, Counsel shall contact the Court to advise that the proof(s) of service has been filed.    

DATED:  March 25, 2025                                          ___________________________

                                                                              Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court

TENTATIVE RULING – NO. 2

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an employment dispute.  On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff David Bittick (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendants Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC; Brennan’s; Tony Yanow; and Nicole Pinsky; alleging various labor violations.  All Defendants except for Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC (“Defendant”) were subsequently voluntarily dismissed. 

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (Conditional).  Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

The issue on a motion to enforce settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. (See Viejo v. Bancorp. (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn. 4 [“a court's power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement”].)  In other words, the only issue before the court is whether an agreement exists; not whether the agreement has been breached.

Once the Court finds such a settlement agreement exists, “the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subd. (a).)  “If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

In support of the motion, Plaintiff has provided the attorney Declaration of Marc Lazo, attached to which as Exhibit A is a copy of the settlement agreement, which provides Defendant will pay Plaintiff $11,474.77 and Plaintiff’s counsel $13,525.23 in exchange for a general release of all claims, to the extent allowable by law, except those expressly exempted, not at issue here, and Plaintiff’s return of company property. 

However, the attached agreement is only signed by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ counsel; it is not signed or initialed by Defendant. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that a settlement agreement exists.

CONCLUSION

            Therefore, because the evidence presented does not demonstrate that a written settlement agreement exists between the parties, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.  

DATED:  March 25, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker