Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00147, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00147    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Kenny Lim of California Property Law Group, APC (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Elm Drive, LLC moves 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:  “The attorney client-relationship between plaintiff and attorneys has irrevocably broken down so as not to allow attorneys to effectively prosecute the above matter.”  (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 Proof of Service indicates the forms were served by mail on the client, and the attorney declaration indicates that the client’s address has been confirmed current within the past 30 days by conversation.  (MC-052, at ¶ 3.)  But there is no indication that the forms were served on Defendants Behdad Moshe Noorani and Behnaz Noorani, who have appeared in this action. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d).)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, in lieu of denying the motion on procedural grounds, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to March 17, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207 to enable counsel to effectuate proper service in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.    

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the Trial Readiness Conference to March 17, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.

The Court further orders Counsel to provide notice of the Court’s orders, including continuance of the motion hearing and the Trial Readiness Conference, and to file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  February 6, 2025                                        ___________________________

                                                                              Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court