Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC661702, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC661702    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 74

BC661702      LAZBEN INVESTMENT CO VS LAWRENCE M DEUTSCH

Troy Martin of Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin APC’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Jacob Deutsch and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Jonah Deutsch

TENTATIVE RULINGS:  Both motions are GRANTED.

Background

On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Lazben Investment Co. filed a complaint against Lawrence M. Deutsch. The complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) Expulsion of General Partner, (2) Monetary Damages, (3) Punitive Damages, and (4) Imposition of Constructive Trust. 

On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of fiduciary Duty, (3) Conversion, (4) Constructive Trust, and (5) Declaratory Relief. 

On August 17, 2018, Intervenor Andrew M. Deutsch filed a complaint in intervention against Lawrence M. Deutsch alleging eight causes of action: (1) Expulsion from Partnership, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Faith Dealing, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Care, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty, (6) Accounting, (7) Unjust Enrichment, and (8) Declaratory Relief. 

On October 31, 2018, Lawrence Deutsch filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Lazben Investment Co., Naftali Deutsch, Benjamin A. Deutsch, Andrew M. Deutsch, Zachary I. Deutsch, Bookkeepers Unlimited Inc., Casa Lago, LLC, All Persons Unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the cross-complaint adverse to Lawrence Deutsch’s Title, or any cloud on Lawrence Deutsch’s title thereto, and Does 1 through 20. The complaint alleged ten causes of action: (1) Quiet title, (2) Declaratory Relief as to Title, (3) Constructive Trust, (4) Slander of Title, (5) Judicial Dissolution, (6) Accounting, (7) Breach of Contract, (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (9) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, and (10) Receivership. 

On April 1, 2022, Troy Martin of Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin APC filed a Notice of Association of Counsel with Steven Y. Han of Han Law Group for Cross-Defendants Jacob Deutsch, Esther Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, and Jonah Deutsch.

On August 16, 2022, Steven Han filed substitutions of attorney for Jacob Deutsch, Aleksander Deutsch, and Jonah Deutsch indicating they had become self-represented litigants.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

On August 31, 2022, Troy Martin of Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin APC filed the instant two motions to be relieved as counsel for Cross-Defendants Jacob Deutsch and Jonah Deutsch.

Response

On October 14, 2022, Cross-Defendants Andrew Deutsch and Zachary Deutsch filed a response stating “Andrew and Zachary urge the Court to deny the motion to be relieved as counsel or alternatively to make clear that the grant of it may not ever be argued by Jonah Deutsch or any other party to provide a basis for any delay or otherwise to prolong the resolution of this matter. In this regard, it should be noted that Jonah Deutsch has been represented by a series of lawyers during the course of this matter, and each new representation has occasioned delays.” Cross-Defendants cite no authority in their response. (See Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 400, 410 (“A point totally unsupported by argument and authority may be rejected by the reviewing court without discussion.”).) Additionally, the Rules of Professional Conduct state the prejudice to be considered is prejudice to the rights of the client, not other parties. (Cal. R. Prof. Cond., rules 1.16(d).)

Discussion

Standard

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) Further, under such discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, the motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

“A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-051).” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(a).) “Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(b).) “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(c).)

“The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service or mail. If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either: (1) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or (2) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(d).)

“The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. 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.” (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1362(e).)

Discussion

Counsel indicates there has been a breakdown in communication rendering representation unreasonably difficult and the clients are in breach of the representation agreement. Accordingly, counsel stated a proper basis for withdrawal. (Cal. R. Prof. Cond., rules 1.16(b)(4); 1.16(b)(5).) As noted above, Jacob Deutsch and Jonah Deutsch also signed a substitution of attorney related to Martin’s co-counsel indicating they were self-represented. The motion was properly served via mail and electronic mail and counsel utilized all required forms. The Court finds the requirements for withdrawal are satisfied.