Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20STCV02305, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02305    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 34

Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc.’s Counsel Kavon Adli and David Newman’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. 

Background

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Biztracker Systems of St. John, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint against Defendant Lavco Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”) on causes of action for intentional interference with contractual relations, trade libel, and unfair business practices.

On September 11, 2024, Defendant’s counsel, Kavon Adli and David Newman (“Counsel”), 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.

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 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. (Ibid.) 

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.)

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 that Defendant has become non-responsive to Counsel’s repeated communications making it unreasonably difficult for Counsel to carry out their employment effectively. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) Additionally, Counsel declares that Defendant has breach its agreement with Counsel pertaining to payment of fees and expenses. (Ibid.) However, the specific facts which give rise to this motion must be kept confidential. (Ibid.) Counsel requests that the court holds an in camera hearing if additional information is required to ascertain the good faith basis for this motion. (Ibid.)

            The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met and will grant the requested withdrawal.

Conclusion

Defendant’s Counsel Kavon Adli and David Newman’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.