Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV29489, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29489    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party:  Defense Counsel Stacy L. Raphael

Resp. Party:    None

Defense Counsel Raphael’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe L.C. filed her Complaint against Defendants PIH Health, Inc., Alliance Emergent Care Associates, and John Miguel M.D. on the following causes of action:

(1)       Negligence;

(2)       Negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention;

(3)       Sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code §§ 51.9 and 52;

(4)       Sexual battery; and

(5)       Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On December 1, 2021, Defendant PIH Health, Inc. filed its Answer.

On December 21, 2022, Stacy L. Raphael, Counsel for Defendant Alliance Emergent Care Associates, filed: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration; and (3) Proposed Order.

No opposition has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

An attorney moving to be relieved as counsel under California Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must meet the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. To comply with rule 3.1362, the moving party must submit the following forms: (1) Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; and (3) Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).) The moving party must serve the aforementioned forms on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) Further, when the client is served by mail, the attorney's declaration must show that the client's address was confirmed within the last 30 days and how it was confirmed. (Id.)  Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

Counsel Raphael’s Motion complies with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, in that Counsel provided notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel; proposed order granting attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel; and declaration in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel. Additionally, the declaration states that Counsel’s client has been served by mail and Counsel confirmed by email within the last 30 days that the address are current. (See Declarations, No. 3(a)(2) and (b)(1)(d).)

The motion has not been opposed by any party to the case.

The trial court may allow a corporation’s attorney to withdraw from representation, even if that would leave the corporation without representation. (Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.) “For the uncooperative corporate client who has not been willing to bring in new counsel, granting of the withdrawal motion will put extreme pressure on it to obtain new counsel of record for should it fail to do so it risks forfeiture of its rights through nonrepresentation.” (Id.) 

As trial is not scheduled until June 2023, there appears to be minimal risk to this Defendant as it will have time to obtain new counsel.

Counsel Raphael’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.