Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22STCV26844, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26844    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 34

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel brought by Wilshire Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff Stacie Dart is DENIED without prejudice. The court will inquire at the hearing whether there are additional facts in support of the Motion. If the court is satisfied, the Motion will be granted, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order via email upon Clients.

Background   

Plaintiff Stacie Dart ( “Plaintiff”) allege as follows:

Defendant VXI Global Solutions, LLC, employed Plaintiff as an Account Associate from January 13, 2020, until December 18, 2020.  On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff notified Defendant’s manager, Sofia Zambrano, (“Zambrano”), via text message that she was ill and required emergency room treatment. Plaintiff sought and received medical treatment and was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and immediately admitted to the hospital. On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s physician recommended she undergo a coronary artery bypass surgery. Plaintiff timely notified Defendant of her physicians’ instructions and forwarded supporting documentation.

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff underwent a coronary artery bypass surgery, and her medical care provider placed her on a medical leave of absence through December 14, 2020. Plaintiff timely notified Defendant of her physicians’ instructions and forwarded supporting documentation. On September 13, 2020, Plaintiff sent Zambrano, via text message, a September 9, 2020, correspondence from her healthcare provider confirming that she had been hospitalized at Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center. On October 20, 2020, Defendant’s employee, Debra Romero (“Romero”) requested Plaintiff, via email, to complete an employee request for accommodations documentation and to have her physician complete certain medical inquiry documentation. Plaintiff and her medical care provider complied and returned the necessary documents to Defendant.

On December 7, 2020, Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s employee, Kimberly Marze (“Marze”), via telephone, inquiring if Plaintiff needed any training before she returned to work. Marze indicated that Plaintiff did not need additional training before returning to work.

On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff contacted Marze via telephone and requested her return-to-work schedule and inquired if she needed any computer passwords or computer login information. Marze replied that Plaintiff did not need new computer passwords or computer login and instructed Plaintiff to bring Defendant’s equipment when she returned to work. Plaintiff questioned Marze about returning her work equipment and inquired if she was being terminated. Marze told her that she had received three escalated calls, instructed Plaintiff to return her work equipment, and indicated the two would discuss her employment status in person. Plaintiff arrived at the Human Resources that same day, December 14, 2020, and returned her work equipment. Plaintiff requested to speak with Marze but was instructed by a human resources employee to return home and that Marze would contact her. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to contact Marze multiple times via telephone and text message to inquire about her employment status.  On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff contacted Zambrano, via text message, inquiring about her employment status. Zambrano instructed Plaintiff to contact the Human Resources Department. On December 18, 2020, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-30 for:

1.               Discrimination Based on Physical Disability;

2.               Failure to Accommodate Actual or Perceived Physical Disability;

3.               Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process;

4.               Failure to Prevent Discriminatory Practices;

5.               Fair Employment & Housing Act Retaliation;

6.               Retaliation for Requesting/Taking California Family Rights Act Leave; and,

7.               Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.  

A Post-Arbitration Status Conference is set for September 4, 2024.

Discussion

Wilshire Law Firm (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Stacie Dart  (“Clients”).

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 Nicol Hajjar (“Hajjar”) represents the following:

There has been a complete breakdown of the working relationship with the client. The specific facts which give rise to this motion are confidential and required to be kept confidential pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct and by the attorney-client privilege [].

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have not been sufficiently met. There is no information that any breakdown in communications exists between the Firm and Clients. The court also does not have any information whether or not the Arbitration hearing office has been notified of this development. The court will inquire whether there are additional facts that should be disclosed at the time of the hearing.  

Accordingly, the motion is Denied without prejudice subject to additional information being considered by the court.