Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV41133, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV41133    Hearing Date: August 29, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Dean A. Olson, Emily R. White, and Clark Hill LLP            

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Darian Braun

(2)   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Beverly Hills Formulators, Inc.

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Dean A. Olson, Emily R. White, and Clark Hill LLP (“Defendants’ Counsel”) separately move to be relieved as counsel for (1) defendant Darian Braun (“Braun”), and (2) defendant Beverly Hills Formulators, Inc. (“Beverly Hills Formulators”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

“The question of granting or denying an application of an attorney to withdraw as counsel (Code Civ. Proc., § 284, subd. 2) is one which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ‘having in mind whether such withdrawal might work an injustice in the handling of the case.’”¿ (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406 [internal quotations omitted].)¿ The court should also consider whether the attorney’s “withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client’s interests.”¿ (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

For a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (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)).¿

The court finds that Defendants’ Counsel has served (1) defendant Braun with the moving papers and notice of the continued hearing date on these motions by mail and email, which Defendants’ Counsel has confirmed within the past 30 days is current, and (2) defendant Beverly Hills Formulators with the moving papers and notice of the continued hearing date on these motions by mail to its last known address, return receipt requested.  (MC-052 Form as to defendant Braun, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(1)(b); Olson Decl., ¶ 4; MC-052 Form as to defendant Beverly Hills Formulators, ¶ 3, subds. (a)(2), (b)(2)(a); Olson Decl., ¶ 4; Aug. 11, 2023 Notice of Continuance, Proof of Service.)  The court further finds that Defendants’ Counsel has shown sufficient reasons why counsel should be relieved and why counsel has brought the motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2) instead of filing a consent under section 284, subdivision (1).  (MC-052 Forms, ¶ 2.)

The court therefore grants Defendants’ Counsel’s (1) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Darian Braun, and (2) motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Beverly Hills Formulators, Inc.

The court, however, notes that the proposed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” is incomplete as to each client because it does not state Defendants’ last known or current addresses and telephone numbers in section 6.  The court will require Defendants’ Counsel to provide Defendants’ current or last known addresses and telephone numbers at the hearing on these motions.

Dean A. Olson, Emily R. White, and Clark Hill LLP will be relieved as counsel for defendants Darian Braun and Beverly Hills Formulators, Inc., effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to each defendant, on the clients. 

The court orders Dean A. Olson, Emily R. White, and Clark Hill LLP to give notice of this ruling and the “Order[s] Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” to defendants Darian Braun and Beverly Hills Formulators, Inc. and to all other parties who have appeared in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 29, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court