Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV16119, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16119    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Counsel Mark T. Risner

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Forward Westwood, Inc., Forward Calabasas, Inc., Joseph Sacavitch, Edward Krifcher, and Paul Morris filed their Complaint against Defendant Meny A. Atias regarding various causes of action arising from the Parties’ business relationship.

On July 12, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed: (1) Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Forward Westwood, Inc., Forward Calabasas, Inc., Paul Morris, Edward Krifcher, and Joseph Sacavitch; and (2) Answer to the Complaint.

 On August 15, 2022, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On February 7, 2024, Mark T. Risner (who is counsel for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Forward Westwood, Inc., Forward Calabasas, Inc., Joseph Sacavitch, Edward Krifcher, and Paul Morris) filed: (1) MC-051, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; (2) MC-052, Declaration; (3) MC-053, Proposed Order; and (4) Proof of Service.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“The 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 upon the minutes; 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

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 these 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.)

II.       Discussion

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 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.

The declaration states: (1) that there are multiple causes allowing permissive withdrawal and warranting mandatory withdrawal; and (2) that Counsel has provided notice of withdrawal and has repeatedly cautioned his clients about the potential consequences of being unrepresented.

        Although this motion is unopposed, the Court is aware of possible prejudice to Plaintiffs should the Court grant this motion.

First, trial is approximately three months from now. Any new counsel that Plaintiffs find will have to quickly catch up on the case, which has already gone on for two years.

Second, aside from narrow exceptions such as in small claims court, the California Supreme Court has long held that corporations cannot represent themselves in propria persona. (Merco Constr. Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mun. Ct. (1978) 21 Cal.3d.724, 730.) Without representation, the corporate Plaintiffs will be at a very high risk as they will not be able to prosecute the case or defend themselves against the claims of the cross-complaint.

        However, Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion.   Further, while Plaintiffs must act promptly if they wish to obtain new counsel, there is still sufficient time for them to do so.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.