Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00114, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00114    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: K

Counsel for Defendant Second Street Promenade, LLC dba Metro Event Center’s (i.e.,

Cummins & White, LLP) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon

the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client at the

Client’s last known address. An Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of LLC is set for

October 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Background    

Plaintiff Julio Garcia (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff worked for Second Street Promenade, LLC dba Metro Event Center (erroneously sued as “Metro Event Center”) (“Metro”) from 2016 through August 12, 2019. On or about June 2019, Plaintiff informed his manager he was not feeling well and that his arm was bothering him due to nerve damage in his right arm. Plaintiff noticed that his hours were being cut shortly thereafter. Defendant never informed Plaintiff why his hours were being cut. After weeks of gradually reducing Plaintiff’s hours, Defendant then took him off the schedule completely. Plaintiff was never called back to work by Defendant.

On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Metro and Does 1-10 for:

1.               Employment Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(a))

2.               Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(m))

3.               Failure to Engage in a Timely & Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(n))

4.               Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(j))

5.               Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12940(h)(m))

6.               Failure to Prevent/Remedy Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(k))

7.               Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

8.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

9.               Failure to Permit Inspection or Copying of Employment Records

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Second Street Promenade, LLC was named in lieu of Doe 1.

On October 10, 2022, an “Order Granting Stipulation to Agree that Metro Event Center and Second Street Promenade, LLC will be a Single Entity Known as Second Street Promenade, LLC dba Metro Event Center” was entered.

The Final Status Conference is set for August 27, 2024. Trial is set for September 10, 2024.

Discussion

Cummins & White, LLP (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Metro (“Client”).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a 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; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 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.

Attorney Erick J. Becker (“Becker”) attests that the Client “refuses to follow counsel’s advice that necessary trial preparation and discovery be conducted and will not agree to pay for any work to be performed in preparation for trial,” which has caused an “irreconcilable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.”

Becker states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via email and mail. Becker explains that the Client corresponded with counsel from the same email address the Client was served with the instant motion and also paid invoices that were sent to this email address within the last 30 days. He advises that the Client was also served with the instant motion via mail, which was confirmed as current via a review of their business website within the last 30 days.

The motion is not opposed. The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.

The court will set an Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of LLC for October 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.