Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 23STCV06832, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06832 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 49
Blackbriar Development Corporation v. Fenster Haus, LLC, et al.
(1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT FENSTER HAUS, LLC
(2) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT RALPH BUSHWAY
MOVING PARTY: Sharice B. Marootian and Kenneth S. Grossbart (counsel for Defendants)
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff Blackbriar Development Corporation alleges it contracted with Defendant Fenster Haus, LLC, for the supply of windows, interior and exterior doors, skylights, gutters, mirrors and other materials for a home project in Beverly Hills. Plaintiff alleges it made payments under the contract but that Defendant has not delivered any materials. Plaintiff also named Ralph Bushway, Fenster Haus’s member and owner, as a Defendant. Defendant Fenster Haus has filed a Cross-Complaint against Blackbriar Development alleging that Blackbriar made numerous breaches of the contract.
Sharice B. Marootian and Kenneth S. Grossbart, counsel for Defendants, now move to be relieved as counsel. The motions are unopposed.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Ralph Bushway is GRANTED.
Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for entity Defendant Fenster Haus, LLC 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 Answer and Cross-Complaint on 12/20/24 at 8:30 a.m. IF DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT MAY BE STRICKEN.
On the Court’s own motion, the Post-Medaition Status Conference set for 11/22/24 is CONTINUED to the same date and time. This should also be included in the Order.
Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.
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 each Defendant. Counsel served the moving papers on the clients by mail on October 15, 2024. (See 10-15-24 Proof of Service.) Counsel states that the clients have received mail monthly from counsel’s office at that address and it has never come back as undeliverable. (Form MC-052, ¶ 3(b).)
In support of withdrawal, counsel attests that “there has been a complete deterioration of the attorney-client relationship” and that “[c]onduct by the client renders it unreasonably difficult for Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman to carry out their employment effectively in the case.” (See Form MC-052, ¶ 2.)
There are no oppositions to the motions. “Good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel. In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to Defendants if counsel is relieved at this time.
Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for individual Defendant Ralph Bushway is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, as discussed above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2024 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court