Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22STCV00211, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00211    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 July 20, 2023 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  22STCV00211

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Maria Pulido v. Douglas Brown, M.D., et al 

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿ 

ATTORNEY NAME:             Attorney for Plaintiff, Greenslade Cronk, LLP

TRIAL DATE:                        None Set, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s apparently mistaken belief about a looming trial date

¿¿¿ 

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

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED. 

I.                    Background  

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff, Maria Pulido (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Douglas Brown, M.D., Westchester Advanced Imaging Center, LLC dba Westchester Advanced Imaging, Radnet, Inc., dba Westchester Advanced Imaging, and DOES 1 though 20. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for Medical Malpractice.

 On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney, Greenslade Cronk, LLP (“Greenslade”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  The Motion was re-filed in Inglewood after the PI Hub court downtown determined the matter to be complicated and thus reassigned it to an I/C court in the Southwest District, which is Inglewood Dept. 8.  The original motion had been filed on May 4, 2023 when the case had been assigned to Dept. 23 in the downtown PI hub. 

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, Greenslade and Ms. Cronk move the Court to relieve them as attorney of record for Plaintiff. Greenslade 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 June 22, 2023, all forms for the pending motion were served on Plaintiff by email at the email address confirmed by counsel as stated in the Declaration of Jennifer Litfin dated June 22, 2023.  Ms. Lifkin’s declaration is essentially the proof of service for the motion papers.  . 

In the declaration supporting the motion to withdraw, Greenslade notes that “counsel seeks to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff Maria Pulido due to a deterioration of communication between counsel and Plaintiff and, subsequently, a deterioration of the attorney-client relationship.”

Plaintiff has filed an opposition to her counsel’s motion. Plaintiff contends that her counsel’s assertion that she has not been communicating is false, and that she has been the one initiating contact with her attorney’s firm for updates on her case. (Declaration of Maria Pulido (“Pulido Decl.”). Plaintiff contends that she has been communicating via text message and telephone with the case paralegal, Daniel, on several occasions.  While Plaintiff’s declaration contends that a trial date was scheduled for a previous date (July 5, 2023), that is inaccurate.  This case is not set for trial and never has been.  Plaintiff notes in her Opposition that she is willing to dismiss the Greenslade form as counsel with the condition they make an appearance ex parte to request a continuation for the trial date for at least a year so that she can retain an attorney.  Given the lack of any trial date, there is no need for this pre-condition. 

In its Reply to Plaintiff’s opposition papers, Greenslade contends that the breakdown in attorney-client relationship they alluded to in the original declaration was based on Greenslade’s determination following emails exchanged between someone purporting to be Plaintiff (Cronk Decl., ¶ 3.) Greenslade contends that at all times up to May 3, 2023, Plaintiff has communicated exclusively in Spanish through Greenslade’s employee, Daniel Lopez, who is fluent in both English and Spanish. (Cronk Decl., ¶ 2; Lopez Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Greenslade contends that the May 3, 2023, email was written in English and sent from an email address of “Shirley Rodriguez” but signed by Plaintiff. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3.) Greenslade also requests this Court exercise its discretion in scheduling a trial date at least a year into the future or, alternatively, to set an alternative hearing for trial scheduling at a future date.

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 Greenslade Cronk as attorneys of record for Plaintiff can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the Plaintiff’s interests.

The Court contemplates scheduling a Case Management Conference six months in the future to give Plaintiff time to secure new counsel or elect to represent herself, the serve the defendants, and to secure an expert witness who can address the issues in a malpractice case for which an expert is required.   

III.              Conclusion & Order 

For the foregoing reasons, Greenslade Cronk, LLP’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.) 

Greenslade is ordered to give notice.