Garrett Richard Bell v. Katrina Spears Babcock et al. 

 

(1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT KATRINA S. BABCOCK

(2) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT KATRINA SPEARS BABCOCK D.O CORPORATION

(3) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANT KATRINA SPEARS BABCOCK D.O. CORPORATION 

 

MOVING PARTY: Linda Guthmann Krieger and Krieger & Krieger, ALC (counsel for Defendant Katrina S. Babcock and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O Corporation)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Garrett Richard Bell (“Bell”) worked at Defendant/Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation’s (“Babcock”) medical practice in West Hollywood at 1106 N. La Cienega Blvd.  The two also allegedly entered into an equal partnership to operate a spa business next door.  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bell alleges eleven causes of action against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Babcock related to his firing from the medical practice.  Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O Corporation filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint containing fourteen (14) causes of action related to Bell’s alleged unauthorized use of the premises at 1106 N. La Cienega Blvd. and alleged breaches of the parties’ oral partnership agreement to operate the spa business.

On June 13, 2023, Defendants filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. On July 25, 2023, this court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to enter judgment under CCP 664.6 without objection. (See 07/25/2023 Minute Order; 07/27/2023 Judgment.) 

Counsel Linda Guthmann Krieger and the law firm Krieger & Krieger, ALC, now move to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Katrina S. Babcock and Defendant/Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation. The motions are unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Katrina S. Babcock is GRANTED.

Counsel’s motion to be Relieved as Counsel for entity Defendant and Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

A. Legal Standard

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under CCP section 284, subdivision¿(2), California Rules of Court 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 CCP section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP 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, declaration, and proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil form (MC-053)).¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)¿

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.)

B. Analysis

Counsel filed Civil forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 for each Defendant and Cross-Complainant.  Counsel served the moving papers on the clients by mail and electronically on July 25, 2023. (See Proofs of Service.) 

Counsel attests that Defendants and Cross-Complainant have “rendered it unreasonably difficult for its attorneys to carry out the representation effectively,” and have “breached a material term of [their] retainer agreement.” (MC-052, ¶ 2.) 

There is no opposition to this motion. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to the parties if counsel is relieved at this time. It is noted that Defendant Katrina Babcock appeared at the July 25, 2023, hearing on the ex parte and confirmed that she was representing herself. (See 07/25/2023 Minute Order.)

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Katrina S. Babcock is GRANTED.

Counsel’s motion to be Relieved as Counsel for entity Defendant and Cross-Complainant Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation is GRANTED.

This Court notes that a judgment was recently entered in this case on 7/25/23.  This judgment was the final resolution of this entire case.  As such, notwithstanding any post-judgment motions which may need to be heard by this Court, there are no further scheduled dates in this case.  However, in the event any such motion is to be heard in the future, the corporate Judgment Debtor would need to be represented by a duly licensed attorney at that time.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   August 24, 2023 ___________________________________