Computer Institute of Technology, Inc. v. Claudia Turcios

(1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR CROSS-DEFENDANT RENE AGUERO

(2) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT COMPUTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

 

MOVING PARTY: Lawrence C. Ecoff (counsel for Cross-Defendant Rene Aguero and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Computer Institute of Technology, Inc.)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Computer Institute of Technology, Inc., brings this action against Defendant Claudia Turcios.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant worked for Computer Institute of Technology as a teacher and later in a managerial position. Plaintiff alleges Defendant used a company-issued credit card to make personal purchases of approximately $200,000. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) conversion, (3) violation of Penal Code section 496, and (4) fraud.

Turcios has filed a Cross-Complaint against Computer Institute of Technology and its principal, Cross-Defendant Rene Aguero, alleging she was sexually harassed by Aguero and wrongfully terminated. Turcios asserts cross-claims for (1) wrongful termination, (2) sex discrimination, (3) sex harassment, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, and (5) retaliation and wrongful termination.

Lawrence C. Ecoff, counsel for Rene Aguero and Computer Institute of Technology, Inc., moves to be relieved as counsel.  The motion is unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Cross-Defendant Rene Aguero is GRANTED.

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for entity Computer Institute of Technology, Inc. is GRANTED on the condition that Counsel submit a new Order (MC-053) which indicates that the next hearing will be an OSC re; Striking of Complaint and Answer on  1/31/25 at 8:30 a.m.  IF PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS COMPLAINT AND ANSWER MAY BE STRICKEN.

The OSC re: Settlement set for 12/27/24 is CONTINUED to 1/31/25 at 8:30 a.m.

DISCUSSION:

Motions 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 Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Computer Institute of Technology and Cross-Defendant Aguero. Counsel served the moving papers on the clients by mail and email on November 7, 2024. (See Proofs of Service.)  Counsel confirmed that the addresses are current within the last 30-days by telephone. (Forms MC-052, ¶ 3(b).)

In support of withdrawal, counsel attests the clients have “breached the terms of the attorney-fee agreement by failing to honor the payment obligation under the fee agreement.” (See Forms MC-052, ¶ 2.) “Counsel has made repeated requests that the client[s] honor the terms of the fee agreement but the client[s] ha[ve] failed to comply.” (Id.)

There are no oppositions to the motions. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to the clients if counsel is relieved at this time. 

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   December 16, 2024 ___________________________________