Northern Resources, Inc., v. Capitol Indemnity Corporation, et al.

CASE NO.:  24STCV13767

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NORTHERN RESOURCES, INC.

 

MOVING PARTY: Stone LLP (counsel for Plaintiff Northern Resources, Inc.)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Capitol Indemnity Corporation

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Northern Resources, Inc. brings this action for malicious prosecution against Defendants Capitol Indemnity Corporation and Howard Goodman. Plaintiff alleges Defendants included Plaintiff as a defendant in a lawsuit despite knowledge that the suit lacked merit. 

Stone LLP, counsel for Plaintiff, now moves to be relieved as counsel. Defendant Capitol Indemnity Corporation filed an opposition. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 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 on TBD.  IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS COMPLAINT MAY BE STRICKEN.

Any necessary continuances of the demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion necessitated by this ruling will be addressed when ruling on Plaintiff’s pending ex parte motion to continue those hearings.

Withdrawing counsel is ordered 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.  Counsel served the moving papers on the client by mail on October 11, 2024. (See Proof of Service.)  Counsel has been unable to confirm that the address is current within the last 30-days, despite attempts to do so by telephone and mail, return receipt requested. (Form MC-052 ¶ 3(b).)

In support of withdrawal, Counsel attests that the “client has become non-communicative and has not fulfilled its obligations under the attorney-client representation agreement thereby rendering it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer and this firm to carry out further representation effectively.” (Form MC-052, ¶ 2.)

Defendant Capitol Indemnity Corporation filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant asserts that at a minimum, the motion to be relieved should be continued until after the hearings on Defendant’s special motion to strike and demurrer. Those hearings are currently set for November 14, 2024.  Defendant also asserts that the timing of the motion “is suspect and duplicitous,” displaying a possible attempt to hinder or delay the hearings on its demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion.  Defendant notes that the parties already stipulated on October 8, 2024, to continue these hearing dates. No mention of a pending withdrawal was made in this stipulation nor in communications between the parties. Just delays later—to Defendant’s surprise—counsel filed this motion to withdrawal.

Here, “good cause” has been adequately demonstrated by Counsel.  In addition, there is no obvious prejudice to Defendant if counsel is relieved at this time. While Defendant’s points in opposition are well-noted, there is no clear evidence that the motion is a part of any deceitful efforts by Plaintiff or its counsel to gain an advantage in this matter—as opposed to unfortunate timing or planning. 

Accordingly, Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 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 on TBD at 8:30 a.m.  IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A NEW ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY THAT DATE, ITS COMPLAINT MAY BE STRICKEN.

Any necessary continuances of the demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion necessitated by this ruling will be addressed when ruling on Plaintiff’s pending ex parte motion to continue those hearings.

Withdrawing counsel is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   November 6, 2024 ___________________________________