Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV24849, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24849    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: 34

Ourian Investment Corp. v. Hedley, et al. (23STCV02215)

The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel brought by Putterman Law, APC, counsel for Defendant Kelly Swartz, 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.

Background

Plaintiff Ourian Investment Corp. (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following:

On or about April 22nd, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant Todd Hedley (“Hedley”) executed and entered into Loan Agreements. Under the terms and conditions of the loan, Plaintiff was to lend Defendant Hedley at total of  $150,000.00 and Defendant Hedley was required to repay Plaintiff in full. Defendant Kelly Swartz  (“Swartz” and along with Hedley as “Defendants”) was received fraudulent transfers from Defendant Headley.

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-100 for:

1.               Breach of Contract;

2.               Breach of Contract

3.               Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1);

4.               Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(2)

5.               Civil Code § 3439.05; and,

6.               Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Common Law.

A Motion to Enforce Settlement is scheduled for September 20, 2024. A Final Status Conference is scheduled for October 1, 2024 and a Jury Trial is scheduled for October 14, 2025.

Discussion[1]    

Putterman Law, APC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant Swartz (“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 Matt Putterman (“Putterman”) represents that “Client has materially breached the retainer agreement with [his] firm. As a result, there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”

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.