Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV27429, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27429    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Tamara Ayvazyan’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Yepremyan Law Firm (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. 

There are several issues that prevent the motion from being granted. 

First, there is no proof of service of the motion, declaration, and proposed order on Plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the case.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) 

Second, Counsel indicates it has been unable to confirm Plaintiff’s address as current.  If Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed address, Counsel must serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court- located at Stanley Mosk Courthouse- pursuant to CCP § 1011 and California Rules Court, rule 3.1362(d). 

Lastly, trial in this action is currently set for June 9, 2023, which is less than three months after the hearing on this motion.  Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause.  Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so.  CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal, none of which are asserted here.

An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)  The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party.  (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391; Heple v. Kluge (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 461.)

The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)  An attorney, either with the client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests; however, an attorney “shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules.”  (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).)  A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case.  (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh, supra.)

Given that trial is set for less than three months after this hearing, Plaintiff will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw.  Absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to Counsel re-filing the motion if the trial date is continued. 

Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 16^th day of March 2023