Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00009, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00009    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 17, 2023

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00009

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Endless Sunset v. 1900 PCH, LLC, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Endless Sunsets

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondents, 1900 PHC, LLC; Roth Management Group, LLC; Timothy R. Roth

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None Set.¿

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Withdrawing counsel shall serve notice or ruling and file proof of service of same, along with notification that a mutual benefit organization must have counsel in order to continue participating as a party in the court system

I. Background

Plaintiff, Endless Sunsets, filed a complaint on January 5, 2021 against Defendants 1900 PCH, LLC, Roth Management Group, LLC, Timothy R. Roth, and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Building Standards; (2) Strict Liability; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of CC&Rs; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven A. Roseman, Esq./Roseman Law, APC (“Roseman”), filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff (“Motion”). No opposition was filed.

Trial is set for October 10, 2023.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure § 284 states that “the attorney in an action…may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: (1) upon the consent of both client and attorney…; (2) upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 284; CRC 3.1362.) The withdrawal request may be denied if it would cause an injustice or undue delay in proceeding; but the court's discretion in this area is one to be exercised reasonably. (See Mandell v. Superior (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4; Lempert¿v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173.)

In making a motion to be relieved as counsel, the attorney must comply with procedures set forth in Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. The motion must be made using mandatory forms: Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel directed to the client – Civil (MC-051); Declaration “stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship” reasons the motion was brought (MC-052); and a Proposed Order (MC-053). (Ibid.) The forms must be filed and served on all parties who have appeared in the case. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Roseman moves the Court to relieve him as attorney of record for Plaintiff. Roseman properly filed a Notice of Motion, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, Declaration, and Proposed Order in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. On December 21, 2022, all forms for the pending motion were served on Plaintiff and Defendants by mail. On December 21, 2022, proof of service for said documents was filed with the Court.

In his declaration he states that he and the client are “engaged in a fee dispute, and Counsel can no longer continue to prosecute this matter without payment.” Roseman also notes that “the reason stated above, combined with other reasons, there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. However, aside from the fee dispute, the other reasons for this breakdown cannot be stated with greater specificity as to do so would jeopardize the attorney-client confidentiality protections as set forth in Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1).”

Since Plaintiff’s counsel has complied with all procedural requirements in filing a motion to be relieved as counsel and because the withdrawal would not cause an injustice or undue delay in proceedings, the Court finds that withdrawal of Roseman as attorney of record for Plaintiff can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the Plaintiff’s interests.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Roseman’s Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel is GRANTED and the Order will be signed at the hearing. “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on Plaintiff and Defendant has been filed with the court.” (Id.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.